Prometheus and Mega Lists, April 1999 (Part Six)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:05:09 -0700
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [MegaList] Reply to Chris Langan, 4/6/99 (Part One)
At 01:32 AM 4/6/99 -0400, Chris wrote:
> 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?
I'm capable of making errors. I've pointed out a number of
Chris' errors, too, which could also wind up 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.
Bob sometimes shoots from the hip, admittedly, but he's hardly
"unswerving." He broke ranks with other dissenters from the
authoritarian regime of Fred Vaughan and endorsed Steve
Schuessler's candidacy for President over that of Don Johnson,
the democracy candidate I supported.
> 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.
Unfortunately, there's some truth to this, though Bob has also
apologized on more than one occasion for going a little too far
in this direction.
> Bob Dick hates me because I'm Chris Langan.
Don't flatter yourself. Bob dislikes your megalomania and your
superciliousness, like a lot of other people.
> It's he who has been deliberately cruel to me, and I'm out of
> patience with him.
Other people also have limited patience.
>>>>> 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.
What are these "several ways"? There's one way: selling test scoring
and a few publications to the public, but this has never been
profitable. Scrooge McDuck paid his nephews more per hour than
I've made for my work in psychometrics.
> 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.
Anyone who's been following the action in Mega knows that my
first "political" exchange with Chris Cole was an objection to his
and Rick Rosner's assumption that they had the consent of the
membership for the merger of Mega and Ron Hoeflin's separate
society that operated under several different names. I knew that
Chris Cole had a thriving computer business at that time, but this
is neither here nor there for me. It's good that one of our members
is getting the kind of compensation all of us deserve for putting
our brainpower to use, but I haven't seen any of Chris' money, so
how is that a motivating factor for me?
>>>>> 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.
What makes an "IQ Test" is its *g* loading.
Spearman invented a method, *factor analysis*, that
permitted a rigorous statistical test of Spencer's and
Galton's hypothesis that a general mental ability enters
into every kind of activity requiring mental effort. A well-
established empirical finding--positive correlations among
measures of various mental abilities--is putative evidence
of a common factor in all of the measured abilities. The
method of factor analysis makes it possible to determine
the degree to which each of the variables is correlated (or
loaded) with the factor that is common to all the variables
in the analysis. Spearman gave the label *g* to this
common factor, which is manifested in individual
differences on all mental tests, however diverse.
--Arthur Jensen, *The g Factor*, p. 18
> 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.
Get real, Chris. The folks here know the difference between
fluid and crystallized intelligence and they know which category
my tests belong to (Ron's are deliberately composed of both
fluid and crystallized elements).
>>> 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.
Precisely the point. The standard tests produce too many high
scores.
>>> 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-
Gosh, there's a typo...no, I probably imagined it.
> 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.
Ah, there's the self-appointed Pope's royal "we." The question of
the relationship between pre-merger and post-merger "regulations"
is still unclear, but we'll be doing something about that soon. In
the special issue on organizational affairs that I'm now preparing
various proposals that have been put forward will be put up for a
vote of the membership.
>>>>>> 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.
Subtlety is lost on Chris. I was referring to the difference between
a "HIGH IQ SOCIETY" and a "high-iq society," that is, between a
self-aggrandizement society like the ISPE and something with a
more serious purpose and more modest claims.
We're under no obligation to accept the standard tests and we have
a lot to lose by doing so, as *none of them discriminates anywhere
near the 4.75-sigma level*.
>>>>> 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).
If one twin has passed one of our qualifying tests and the other
hasn't, only one of them gets in.
>> 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.
That's what I've been doing in my articles on psychometrics in
*Noesis* and elsewhere.
> 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.
That's an important consideration. People don't have a lot of time
but very difficult problems are required for our purposes and
there need to be enough of them to do decent statistics on (at least
twenty, and preferably thirty or forty). But it won't be necessary
to increase the length of our tests to get a bit more ceiling out of
them.
>>> 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.
In all the time I've been receiving answer sheets listing scores on
previously-taken IQ tests, I haven't received a single score on the
Pintner Intermediate, indicating that it cannot have been taken by
large numbers of people. On what basis does anyone think that
this test can discriminate at the mega level? Can you produce any
research reports indicating anything of the kind?
>> ["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?
These "solutions" and the critical response of Mega members are
contained in back issues of *Noesis*, but it's not exactly edifying
reading.
> 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.
Why? Isn't this debate good enough?
> Do you think the people on this list are so stupid that they can't
> discern your cowardly avoidance tactics?
I think they're not stupid enough to fall for Chris' bluster.
>>> 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.
It's an empirical question. If there's a hearing of some sort before
the Board of Psychology we'll have a chance to find out.
[Here Chris edited out his graceless wish for a happy Easter
restricted to "non-Langdonoids."]
>>>> "...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.
The real crudity was in Chris' ignoring the universality of the
Christian holiday of Easter. I just put it into words.
>> 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?
I haven't called for Chris' expulsion at this point, but that could
change.
> 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.
Gee, I'm scared. Expel me from *what*?
> Then...well, just use that perfervid imagination of yours. First
> there was California...
...and then the Gestapo knocked on Langdon's door....
>> ["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.
I've been here all along and I've presented a fairly large body of
work for public scrutiny.
And you wouldn't know Jesus if He bit you in the ass.
(Continued in Part Two.)
Kevin Langdon
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:04:55 -0700
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [MegaList] Reply to Chris Langan 4/6/99 (Part Two)
(Continued from Part One)
>> [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.
[Here Chris snipped several intervening remarks.]
>> 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?
That was a convenient analogy; no theological gnosis is implied.
>>>> 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.
I've read everything that Chris has published in *Noesis*. But
Chris is right; monkeys never make judgements on writings
they haven't read.
> You can't meaningfully deny the truth of something you don't
> understand, and you don't understand anything I write.
No, I understand some of the parts of it. But just where it starts
to get interesting, Chris time and again invokes various magical
CTMU principles, without defining them, which supposedly get
him around the hard parts.
> But right now on two HIQ message boards, there is evidence
> that plain old college students can understand what you cannot.
There are people who think they understand L. Ron Hubbard's
nonsensical writings, too.
> Given that this is the case, why are you in the Mega Society?
Chis continues to labor under the delusion that the Mega Society
is about his purportedly-revolutionary intellectual productions.
>>>>>> 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.
Chris has a brain; I have a brain. If I pronounce something he writes
"crap," he is free to rebut me if he can. I don't know what he means
by "spiking."
> This tends to happen most of all to people who disagree with you.
Yes, that's true. I do tend to disagree more with people who disagree
with me. Duh.
> That's why we have two editions of Noesis now.
We have one edition of *Noesis* and one mislabeled high-IQ
snotrag published by Chris Langan.
> Whatever you can't understand or don't agree with is "irrational"
> and must be censored;
Give an example of something that's been "censored."
> whatever you understand and agree with becomes, by fiat, "the
> will of the members".
No, Chris. The members voted for the officers we have (not
including *you*), but nobody ran for Editor. Chris Cole asked
me to take on the Editorship and I did. Later, Ron Hoeflin
became our second Editor, publishing in alternation with me.
> 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?
As usual, I leave it to the membership to evaluate my work as
Editor.
And here again, Chris is attributing a motive to another person
without evidence.
>> 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).
Then why are you worried about it? As for keeping the addresses
of members and subscribers "secret," this is to avoid subjecting
these people to the junk mail called "Noesis East" (I find it
somewhat interesting, but people should have a choice about
receiving it; every issue is pretty much like these messages of
Chris'). Those who would like to receive this publication have
only to write to Chris Langan, P.O. Box 131, Speonk, NY 11972.
[Steve:]
>>>>>> 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.
Fortunately, that reporter spoke to people who didn't embarrass
us with overblown claims.
>>> 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.
I note where material is snipped; Chris just leaves it out. I have
deliberatenely not snipped anything in responding to Chris' latest
message. Sorry, folks.
>>>>> 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.
Sarcasm is wasted on Chris.
> Don't play dumb, Kevin. I know it comes naturally to you, but this
> is not a group for dummies.
You could have fooled me.
>>> 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.
I responsibly halted scoring of the LAIT when I learned that it had
been compromised. A similar process is taking place now with
respect to the Mega and Titan tests. The nature of this type of testing
guarantees that these tests will have limited lifetimes, but this does
not invalidate them as psychometric instruments *before* they're
compromised.
>>>>> 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?
You're the one who brought it up. You claim that I'm making a lot
of money. Where's the evidence?
This kind of speculation about other people's motives doesn't
help your credibility.
> And once more, you can speak only for yourself regarding the
> CTMU.
I can observe that others have said that they can't make heads or
tails of Chris' work.
>>>> 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're the one who's worried about whether our admission tests are
endorsed by the academic psychometricians.
> 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
I have no fear of having my work scrutinized, unlike Chris Langan,
who has an irrational fear that someone else will rip off his
brilliant conceptual constructs.
(Continued in Part Three)
Kevin Langdon
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:05:14 -0700
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [MegaList] Reply to Chris Langan, 4/6/99 (Part Three)
(Continuted from Part Two)
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:37:57 -0400 (EDT), Chris wrote:
> Subject: Re: [MegaList] SAT and IQ Test Normings
> On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 gcfogleman@att.net wrote:
>> Chris L. wrote:
>>>> The SAT isn't an IQ test; it's a test of crystallized
>>>> intelligence.
>> and
>>>> 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.
>> The SAT is considered a thinly-veiled and pretty good IQ
>> test (at least for U. S. High School juniors and seniors -
>> - it isn't "culture-fair"). A number of references
>> regarding this fact can be found in the Prometheus Society
>> Membership Committee report.
> I have that report. Quoting Jensen, it reads "Data obtained
> from 339 college students support the notion that much of the
> variance in SAT scores can be attributed to g." Obviously,
> this isn't the same as calling it an "IQ test".
What's the difference?
> For the report then goes on "There are cautionary notes to
> be added, though: g-loading is a function of both the test
> involved and the population being measured. Jensen's data
> were obtained from a small sample of college students..."
> It even mentions a study in the Princeton Review which
> claims that SAT-takers can register improvements of well
> over 200 points due to coaching.
The best SAT prep courses do seem to be able to achieve that
much of a difference, though most courses don't come near
that. 200 points of total SAT score is about 20 points of IQ,
which is decidedly nontrivial. Part of ETS' strategy all along
has been to pooh-pooh SAT preparation books and courses--
and it's worked. Only a small percentage of those who take
the SAT use anything of the sort to prepare.
I don't doubt that the SAT has a significant crystallized *g*
component. It is likely that that is why these programs are
successful. However, no one is claiming that this component
doesn't exist, only that the *g* loading of the SAT is not
inferior to that of most IQ tests.
> I have no trouble acknowledging that the SAT is g-loaded.
> But it's loaded for other factors too, and we can't be sure that
> these other factors don't play a part in the correlations with
> power-IEQ tests.
My tests correlate better with "fluid" than with "crystallized"
intelligence tests.
> Moreover, what about the persistence factor? I know for a
> fact that power-IEQ test scores are pretty sensitive to how
> much time you're willing to spend racking them up. The
> Mega Society selects its members well above the level at
> which persistence enters the picture. I know that from
> personal experience, as well as from the reports of other
> members. Why do you think Ron Hoeflin felt compelled to
> disallow second attempts? There was too much gain for
> extra time spent. Persistence is not equivalent to *g*.
What is left out here is the amount of time it actually takes to
take a conventional IQ test. First one must make arrangements
to be tested, then one must drive to the test site, take the test,
and drive home. When you add a comfort factor to total time
spent, there's no obvious advantage to the more traditional
tests.
>> It is not true that "most other IQ tests are normed using
>> childhood scores." Again, evidence for this is discussed
>> in the PS MC report. There was a lot of discussion during
>> the MC deliberations (I was a participant) about the ways
>> the standard IQ tests are normed. Several MC members
>> had significant experience in psychometrics and had
>> professionally administered a number of the standard
>> tests. One MC member is a clinical psychologist who has
>> access to the highly confidential "test manuals," which
>> contain details on the test normings and on how to score
>> the tests. Many of the tests we discussed were normed by
>> age group. The test publisher would provide, say, several
>> normings for different childhood age ranges and a separate
>> independent norming for adults. Some tests (e.g. the
>> Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices) also had normings for
>> different adult age groups in order to take into account
>> the decrease in cognitive function that generally comes
>> with aging.
> This looks to me to be all but irrelevant. Power-IEQ tests have
> been normed using the scores that were provided, regardless of
> the age-based normings from which those scores were derived.
> So there are bound to be childhood scores in the mix...scores
> that don't allow for the usual age-related decrease in IQ.
No one disputes that there were childhood scores "in the mix."
IQ increases to a peak around age 20-25 (fluid) or 60
(crystallized), and then declines. Fluid *g* declines slowly up
until age 60, then more rapidly. But the age at which fluid *g*
peaks depends on how much of it there is. People at the Mega
level peak around age 40-50, on the average. (This is a very
rough estimate based on eyeballing raw data.)
> On the other hand, if you're saying that childhood IQ test
> normings automatically allow for "regression to the mean",
> then there's no reason not to accept them as primary qualifiers.
> Either way, my point stands.
Both childhood and adult scores are estimates of *g*. If two
*g* loaded measures are not correlated 1.0 a certain regression
toward the mean on one measure is to be expected if you start
with high scores on the other.
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 14:06:48 -0400 (EDT), Chris wrote:
> Subject: Re: [MegaList] the pooh server is a server of very
> small mailbox
> On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, James C. Harbeck wrote:
>> In a way, it's fun to watch the sLANGing match whiz by; it
>> saves me from having to turn on pro wrestling on TV to get
>> roughly the same.
Sure, if you disregard the intellectual content. A lot of people
seem to feel that intellecual issues needn't be dealt with if they
are accompanied by strong feelings. This is wrong.
>> And I even get the pleasure of hitting the D button and
>> making whole reams of invective disappear magically as
>> though down a wide-mouthed toilet. But could I make one
>> small request? When replying to each other, could you keep
>> the repeat (i.e., caretted) material down to a minimum? And
>> avoid saying the same thing too many times? My mailbox got
>> maxed out over the weekend, resulting in several bounces,
>> and even just since yesterday it's come dangerously close to
>> overflowing again. Brevity, amigos, is the soul of wit, no?
>> And if you were to keep your missives to two screens in
>> length, more people might take the time to read them
>> through--if that matters to you (if it doesn't, and you're happy
>> having a three- or four-way shouting match, perhaps you
>> could take it off the list to save bandwidth).
>> Muchos gracias, James Harbeck.
> I agree, big Jim. I'd rather discuss something with real content
> (that's what those challenges Kevin keeps ignoring are about -
> actual mathematico-philosophical issues we've debated).
So what's stopping you? You don't need my permission to post
material on whatever interests you.
> Let's go back to the latest topic proposed by Steve: the distinction
> between rationalistic and empirical factors in theorization.
> Here's what I say. I say both factors are necessary.
Aristotle and Kant both said something like that. How do your
views resemble and differ from theirs?
> Modern science is attempting to have its cake and eat it too by
> booting rational cognition out of the picture while making free
> use of logic and mathematics to relate observed phenomena
> (and even to construct experiments).
Modern science gives rational cognition an honored place, but
not the same central place as direct observation of the world.
> I say that's a paradox...a prima facie absurdity constituting a
> protracted backlash against (Grecophile) scholasticism. You
> can't boot cognitive structure out of objective reality in order
> to "de-subjectivize" it and then use it to glue together your
> supposedly "objective" theories.
Science doesn't claim any "objective" theories. A real scientist
considers all conclusions to be tentative, to varying degrees.
Cognitive processing of data is necessary to draw precise and
systematic conclusions. This is analogous to the sharp images
obtained through computer processing of raw image data
returned by interplanetary spacecraft. It doesn't mean that the
data is inherently digital.
> The very idea is ridiculous, but has been swallowed hook,
> line and sinker by much of the scientific establishment. Call
> it "anti-scholastic scholasticism".
You don't suppose that scholasticism itself could be to blame
for its bad reputation?
> For example, the metric tensor, a mathematical construct, is
> accepted as a feature of spacetime structure (we can use any
> other mathematical ingredient of physical law just as easily).
> That amounts to the physical objectivization of a certain
> mathematical construct. But since a tensor is just a
> mathematical black box that transforms input vectors to
> output vectors (or scalars), this amounts to saying that
> spacetime is computational - or in a specific generalized
> sense, "cognitive" - in nature and functionability. This is
> totally out of sync with modern science, which would scream
> like a wounded eagle at the very idea that reality works by
> means of distributed generalized cognition. Why, it's almost
> a projection of the human psyche onto "objective reality"!
A model is a model. The real world is the real world. The map
is not the territory.
> Remember, Kant identified logic and mathematics as what
> amount to "elements of cognitive syntax". So when you
> implant them in objective reality, you implant the cognitive
> syntax of the human mind in reality. And when you do that,
> you (in effect) make reality cognitive.
There are aspects of human awareness of the world that are
not cognitive. We share these aspects with other animals. And
the use of cognitive categories in dealing with the world does
not require "implanting" anything. One simply looks for
patterns, then makes use of cognitive processing to construct
experiments to test the resulting hypotheses. The hypotheses
are treated hypothetically until they've been verified.
> So why do physicists, and even mathematicians, so
> assiduously screen all mention of cognition out of their
> theoretical universes? Are they dummies? Or are they just
> frightened?
Or are they just aware of all the nonempirical nonsense that
comes from the mouths and keyboards of "philosophers"
who think that you can make something out of nothing.
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 14:28:46 -0400 (EDT), Chris wrote:
>Subject: Re: [MegaList] Some thoughts on sanity
> On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Don O'Brien wrote:
>> It seems to me that anyone claiming superiority by virtue
>> of never having had mental difficulties is like an artist
>> claiming to be an expert in shades of gray who has never
>> seen or experienced black.
Yes, but not everyone who's seen black has fallen into the
clutches of the mental health system.
>> I will not be so presumptuous as to assume that I am in
>> any way superior by having experienced black myself.
>> However, when I can put aside my own fear, it is an
>> interesting and enlightening experience to have gone
>> through; shedding a minuscule amount of light on how
>> much of "me" is just a particular combination of
>> chemicals in my brain.
Yes. It's at the same time terrifying and very interesting
when one sees through some of the machinery that hides
people's condition from themselves and catch a glimpse of
the fragmentation, automaticity, and comforting illusions
making up the psychic life of man.
Is there something in me that *isn't* just a particular
combination of chemicals?
>> I could argue that one might more objectively evaluate,
>> comprehend and appreciate sanity by having something to
>> compare it with in personal experience.
>>
>> Personally I have found that the ignorance and prejudice
>> of others is more of a discouragement than the disease itself.
>> Except that it would give more credit for experience than
>> is due, I would say that denigrating someone for mental
>> problems is itself a form of insanity.
> You're quite correct. I apologize for seeming to suggest that
> people with mental problems are "inferior". I don't really
> believe this, and I'm sure the rest of us don't either. I was
> just angered when Bob Dick suggested as much regarding
> me, even though he's been on the dark side himself. Try to
> remember that Bob has a history of disparaging me and my
> work without giving any rationally-accessible specifics. I'm
> tired of it, not least because his accusations are so frequently
> echoed by his pal Foghorn...again, without benefit of
> meaningful specifics. It's a game they play.
Forget about old grievances. Look how much energy it takes
just to deal with current ones. I'm willing to debate with you
but I'm not willing to dig up old stuff at your command.
> Let me ask you this. Would you rather that I patronize Bob
> because I know that he's had mental difficulties? Or would
> you rather that I treat him just like I treat Kevin? [If you'd
> rather that I ignore them both and let Kevin have his way the
> customary 100% of the time at Society expense, you can
> forget it.]
I was not aware that the Mega Society marched to my tune.
I take being Editor as a form of public service. Anyone who
feels that I am in any way oppressing him or her is welcome
to bring this to my attention.
Kevin Langdon