Prometheus and Mega Lists, April 1999 (Part Fourteen)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 10:14:21 -0700
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [MegaList] A Personal Reply to Chris Langan
I have decided to try to bring some order into the exchange of
messages between Chris and me by segregating my remarks in this
interation according to subject matter. A "Reply to Chris Langan on
Psychometrics" accompanies this message. A "Reply to Chris Langan
on Isomorphisms, Models, & Objectivity" will follow.
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 18:06:16 -0400 (EDT), Chris wrote:
> Subject: Re: [MegaList] Reply to Chris Langan, 4/11/99 (Part One)
>>>> And how can I be a "philosopher"? I haven't been elected by
>>>> the ISPE.
>>> No. But you did manage to get yourself booted out of it on grounds
>>> of inveterate Nietzscheism.
>> The five founders of TNS were kicked out of the ISPE for founding
>> TNS to provide ISPE members with a democratic alternative. Only
>> someone intent on making points at the expense of honesty would
>> cite this as anything but a badge of honor.
> If that were true, then you wouldn't be the bugaboo of TNS today.
I'm the bugaboo of all tyrants in the higher-IQ societies. The current
leadership of TNS is keeping official business secret from the
membership and violating the TNS Constitution in a number of ways
and they've removed the high-range power tests from TNS' list of
qualifying scores.
>>>>> Only Kevin can answer that question, and he has never done
>>>>> so honestly. But no matter what his problem may be, it is
>>>>> clear that his style of thought, and his summary rejection of
>>>>> the work of qualified Mega Society members, is not to be
>>>>> emulated. Indeed, his chronic irrationality has the potential
>>>>> not only to keep us eternally in obscurity, but to make
>>>>> everyone in the group look like a fool...like a twittering fife,
>>>>> peeping piccolo or tooting tuba in the goose-stepping
>>>>> "marching band" that he perceives whenever he arrogantly
>>>>> surveys his imagined dominion.
>>>> Projection.
>>> Did you or did you not call the Mega Society a "marching band"?
>>> Tell the truth, now...some of us still have the issue in which you
>>> printed it.
>> But most of us won't go to the trouble of looking it up, so I've
>> reproduced it here (from *Noesis* #136, December 1997, p. 17):
>>
>> Chris Langan complained that the unofficial Mega Society
>> Web sites don't present his version of how things are in the
>> society. But what is going on here is sort of like a marching
>> band with a tuba player who marches off in one direction
>> with his little dog (unfortunately not toilet-trained) while
>> everyone else goes in another (because the tuba player never
>> listens to any of the other instruments and marches with his
>> eyes closed). Naturally, an impartial observer asked "Where's
>> the band?" will not point to the wayward tuba player.
>>
>> Extending the analogy further, the tuba player is always playing
>> wrong notes and he keeps trying to trip the other members of the
>> band (without much success because he's very clumsy). It should
>> also be noted that the members of the band are volunteers, as are
>> the band leaders, and have not been leaned on by the Mafia.
> My position regarding the above excerpt has always been that the
> little martinet waving the conductor's baton in front of the band
> can only be the one who* sees* a marching band when he looks
> at the group in question. Don't be misled by Foghorn's casual
> analogies, folks. Kevin's real thoughts and intentions always come
> percolating to the surface despite his best efforts to conceal them.
Chris continues to draw conclusions about other people's motives
without evidence.
> And as his analogy shows, his psychological idiosyncrasies happen
> to include a John Phillip Souza complex.
Whereas Chris has had trouble finding anyone to join his "band."
<snip>
>>>> Your assumption that you know more than I do about
>>>> "cerebral organization and mechanics" is not corroborated by
>>>> any evidence I'm aware of.
>>> Get real. Anybody with an elementary knowledge of neural nets
>>> knows more about cerebral mechanics than you do.
>> People I know who are working on neural net theory are hardly
>> experts on the human psyche. It's a theory. What's important,
>> even for *you*, Chris, is whatever understanding you have of
>> experience *from the inside*.
> First, brains consist of neurons, and are therefore neural networks.
> So certain aspects of the basic mechanics are present in the most
> general neural models.
Brains consist of atoms and are therefore atomic networks, but this
may not be the most fruitful way to study them.
> And second, do you mean that you have to belong to the "Neural
> Net Club" in order to examine neural nets, even when the Internet
> offers many good simulation packages for nothing?
That's interesting. Which packages do you recommend?
> You must be very unhappy outside of academia, Kevin. Why
> don't you try to go back? The worst that could happen is that
> they'll bleed you dry and make you take a lot of courses about
> things you already know.
It *would* be more convenient in certain respects to have a Ph.D.
in psychology. I don't rule out going back to school, but I'm not in
a hurry to do it, as I have other, higher priorities at the present time.
> Meanwhile, I'm on the inside of any field I *want* to be inside
> of, intellectually speaking. That's what a high IQ is good for.
Who do you think you're kidding? That's what you've been
complaining that a high IQ *isn't getting you* for a long time.
[Note to purists: "Whom do you think you're kidding?" has no
punch.]
> And what I'm saying to *you*, Kevin Langdon, is that I know
> more about the subject than you do. Probably a *lot* more!
As stated a few paragraphs back, "the subject" is "cerebral
organization and mechanics." For simplicity, let's call it "how the
brain (or mind) works." I see evidence only that you have some
math background and you've had some interesting insights into
this and that, not that you have a uniquely penetrating "theory
of everything," as you claim, or even a comprehensive brain/
mind model.
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 18:45:14 -0400 (EDT), Chris wrote:
> Subject: Re: [MegaList] Reply to Chris Langan, 4/11/99 (Part Two)
>> On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 06:15:56 -0400 (EDT), Chris wrote:
>>> Subject: Re: [MegaList] Is Langan a Heaviside: Part II
>>>
>>> Below is Bob Dick's latest attempt to get my goat. I started to
>>> compose a detailed reply mentioning recent correspondence
>>> with Noam Chomsky, Tom Wolfe, and so on...people far more
>>> successful, and perhaps more intelligent, than almost anyone in
>>> this group. But I caught myself and pressed "cancel". Why?
>>> Because nothing one says to a yapping lapdog like Bob Dick
>>> will ever make him shut up. All Kevin Langdon has to do is
>>> stick a biscuit under his snout, and Bob will raise the roof to
>>> earn his treat.
>> Here is more deeply offensive language.
> Too bad. Curb your yappy friend, or it gets worse.
I'd suggest that you put a damper on it. I can't speak for all Mega
members about exactly where the civility limits here might be,
but whatever the limits are, you're the champ in the bad behavior
department.
If you're right, why do you need the nasty stuff?
>>> However, I would like to say something about intellectual
>>> progress. The greatest inroads are often made by people out of
>>> the mainstream. Why? Precisely because they have nothing to
>>> lose by being conspicuously less mediocre than their more
>>> successful colleagues, who ignore them and pat each other on
>>> the back for repeating each other's mistakes. What the world
>>> needs now is not another crop of academic parrots, but at least
>>> one real supergenius. For this, future generations of humanity
>>> - the ones who stand to benefit from the most advanced work
>>> done today - would, if the choice were theirs, gladly trade a
>>> million second-rate, oxygen-wasting Dicklike hacks and call it
>>> a bargain.
>> The "supergenius" always needs to derogate someone else in
>> order to make himself look good.
> Like you derogate me in the above statement, you mean? And by
> the way, is it or is it not true that the mega threshold could
> reasonably be labeled with the term "supergenius"?
It is not true. IQ is only the *potential* for genius, "super" or
otherwise.
> You're insulting the very premise of this group!
More projection. Your attempted usurpation of the editorship of
*Noesis* and the authority to make decisions for the Mega Society,
including admitting unqualified people to your version of Mega,
your attempts to dumb down our admission standards, and your
intemperate statements about other members of the society have
done more damage to the Mega Society than Paul Maxim has been
able to do with all his frothing at the mouth.
>>> The Mega Society does not exist for $500 intellectual whores
>>> like Bob Dick (not, mind you, that Bob shouldn't be proud
>>> that he finally sold an article; it's just that the paltry, stinking
>>> $500 he was paid is obviously what he considers the most
>>> important part of his achievement).
>> It seems to be a rahter important part for Chris, too. It makes
>> him envious, and that makes him cruel.
> What's your support for the notion that money is the driving
> force behind my theorization?
I'm not talking about your "theorization"; I'm talking about your
cruel characterization of others and your reactivity to others'
success at anything.
>>> Rather, the Mega Society exists to nurture real geniuses...the
>>> ones who can expect no appreciation from academia, because
>>> they can too easily make academia look bad.
>> ...except Kevin Langdon, who will be crushed like a bug by
>> the psychometric establishment.
> Quite so. And nothing he says can change that. In fact, his style
> of self-expression all but *guarantees* that.
It's a testable proposition. We shall see.
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:37:21 -0400 (EDT), Chris wrote:
> Subject: Re: [MegaList] Langan is not a Heaviside
> On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 GR2rojad@aol.com (that's Bob Dick)
> wrote:
>> Chris Langan has said or implied:
>>
>> 1) He wants his work reviewed by his intellectual peers, the
>> members of the Mega Society.
>> 2) NObody has approved of his work, not even among his
>> intellectual peers, except a few famous people in casual
>> exchanges of letters.
>> 3) Nevertheless he, Chris, is a supergenius.
> Actually, I have not directly called myself a "supergenius". I
> don't have to. The Mega Society selects all of its applicants to be
> "supergeniuses", at least in potential. That's the meaning of our
> qualification standard. Of course, woe betide the one who states
> this in front of Bob Dick. No one is more fearless than Mr. Dick
> when it comes to defending the high standards of mediocrity that
> he and Mr. Langdon have set for this group.
There's some truth in this. As Editor of *Noesis*, I have had to
live with the fact that I am not receiving submissions on the order
of *On the Origin of Species* or the special theory of relativity.
But high standards of mediocrity beat the hell out of mediocre
standards of "high."
>> Thus, sorted out from all the chaff and crap we see that Chris
>> agrees with me that he is a crackpot. I will attempt in the future
>> to decline battles of wits with this unarmed man.
> Does Dick have a bug up his rear? Aside from his mentor Kevin,
> that's the only possible reason I can think of for the "we".
"We see," as in "it should be apparent to everyone who's been
following this exchange," not as in "We are all Langdonoids here."
Kevin Langdon
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 05:41:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Reply-To: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
It's getting late, and I'm getting tired. So instead of trimming a lot of
this unnecessarily long message, I'm sending it as is.
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Kevin Langdon wrote:
> I have decided to try to bring some order into the exchange of
> messages between Chris and me by segregating my remarks in this
> interation according to subject matter. A "Reply to Chris Langan on
> Psychometrics" accompanies this message. A "Reply to Chris Langan
> on Isomorphisms, Models, & Objectivity" will follow.
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 18:06:16 -0400 (EDT), Chris wrote:
>
> > Subject: Re: [MegaList] Reply to Chris Langan, 4/11/99 (Part One)
>
> >>>> And how can I be a "philosopher"? I haven't been elected
by
> >>>> the ISPE.
>
> >>> No. But you did manage to get yourself booted out of it on grounds
> >>> of inveterate Nietzscheism.
>
> >> The five founders of TNS were kicked out of the ISPE for founding
> >> TNS to provide ISPE members with a democratic alternative. Only
> >> someone intent on making points at the expense of honesty would
> >> cite this as anything but a badge of honor.
>
> > If that were true, then you wouldn't be the bugaboo of TNS today.
>
> I'm the bugaboo of all tyrants in the higher-IQ societies. The current
> leadership of TNS is keeping official business secret from the
> membership and violating the TNS Constitution in a number of ways
> and they've removed the high-range power tests from TNS' list of
> qualifying scores.
And yet, I and a majority of others seem to get along with the TNS
leadership just fine.
>
> >>>>> Only Kevin can answer that question, and he has never done
> >>>>> so honestly. But no matter what his problem may be, it is
> >>>>> clear that his style of thought, and his summary rejection of
> >>>>> the work of qualified Mega Society members, is not to be
> >>>>> emulated. Indeed, his chronic irrationality has the potential
> >>>>> not only to keep us eternally in obscurity, but to make
> >>>>> everyone in the group look like a fool...like a twittering fife,
> >>>>> peeping piccolo or tooting tuba in the goose-stepping
> >>>>> "marching band" that he perceives whenever he
arrogantly
> >>>>> surveys his imagined dominion.
>
> >>>> Projection.
>
> >>> Did you or did you not call the Mega Society a "marching
band"?
> >>> Tell the truth, now...some of us still have the issue in which you
> >>> printed it.
>
> >> But most of us won't go to the trouble of looking it up, so I've
> >> reproduced it here (from *Noesis* #136, December 1997, p. 17):
> >>
> >> Chris Langan complained that the unofficial Mega Society
> >> Web sites don't present his version of how things are in the
> >> society. But what is going on here is sort of like a marching
> >> band with a tuba player who marches off in one direction
> >> with his little dog (unfortunately not toilet-trained) while
> >> everyone else goes in another (because the tuba player never
> >> listens to any of the other instruments and marches with his
> >> eyes closed). Naturally, an impartial observer asked "Where's
> >> the band?" will not point to the wayward tuba player.
> >>
> >> Extending the analogy further, the tuba player is always playing
> >> wrong notes and he keeps trying to trip the other members of the
> >> band (without much success because he's very clumsy). It should
> >> also be noted that the members of the band are volunteers, as are
> >> the band leaders, and have not been leaned on by the Mafia.
>
> > My position regarding the above excerpt has always been that the
> > little martinet waving the conductor's baton in front of the band
> > can only be the one who* sees* a marching band when he looks
> > at the group in question. Don't be misled by Foghorn's casual
> > analogies, folks. Kevin's real thoughts and intentions always come
> > percolating to the surface despite his best efforts to conceal them.
>
> Chris continues to draw conclusions about other people's motives
> without evidence.
"Without evidence"? How about telling us where we can look and *not*
find some evidence?
> > And as his analogy shows, his psychological idiosyncrasies happen
> > to include a John Phillip Souza complex.
>
> Whereas Chris has had trouble finding anyone to join his "band."
That's because I only play with the best.
> >>>> Your assumption that you know more than I do about
> >>>> "cerebral organization and mechanics" is not corroborated
by
> >>>> any evidence I'm aware of.
>
> >>> Get real. Anybody with an elementary knowledge of neural nets
> >>> knows more about cerebral mechanics than you do.
>
> >> People I know who are working on neural net theory are hardly
> >> experts on the human psyche. It's a theory. What's important,
> >> even for *you*, Chris, is whatever understanding you have of
> >> experience *from the inside*.
>
> > First, brains consist of neurons, and are therefore neural networks.
> > So certain aspects of the basic mechanics are present in the most
> > general neural models.
>
> Brains consist of atoms and are therefore atomic networks, but this
> may not be the most fruitful way to study them.
Maybe not. Then again, you can't make a contrary assertion either. Ever
read "Shadows of the Mind" by Roger Penrose? Here's another theory you
can't rule out, and for the potential truth of which you must allow.
> > And second, do you mean that you have to belong to the "Neural
> > Net Club" in order to examine neural nets, even when the Internet
> > offers many good simulation packages for nothing?
>
> That's interesting. Which packages do you recommend?
There's a fairly complete list of packages on the NEuroNet site. I have
about four or five of them loaded on this machine (that's what you have to
do if you want an assortment of features, which aren't all enabled in the
demo versiona of big commercial simulators like NeuroSol).
> > You must be very unhappy outside of academia, Kevin. Why
> > don't you try to go back? The worst that could happen is that
> > they'll bleed you dry and make you take a lot of courses about
> > things you already know.
>
> It *would* be more convenient in certain respects to have a Ph.D.
> in psychology. I don't rule out going back to school, but I'm not in
> a hurry to do it, as I have other, higher priorities at the present time.
>
> > Meanwhile, I'm on the inside of any field I *want* to be inside
> > of, intellectually speaking. That's what a high IQ is good for.
>
> Who do you think you're kidding? That's what you've been
> complaining that a high IQ *isn't getting you* for a long time.
Wrong. Where a high IQ doesn't get you is inside the CLUB, not the field.
To a complete sucker for academia like you, the club *is* the field.
> > And what I'm saying to *you*, Kevin Langdon, is that I know
> > more about the subject than you do. Probably a *lot* more!
>
> As stated a few paragraphs back, "the subject" is "cerebral
> organization and mechanics." For simplicity, let's call it "how the
> brain (or mind) works." I see evidence only that you have some
> math background and you've had some interesting insights into
> this and that, not that you have a uniquely penetrating "theory
> of everything," as you claim, or even a comprehensive brain/
> mind model.
There you go again...making judgments on that which you don't understand.
My theory of intelligence is actually pretty advanced; I'm not prepared to
go into it here for my own reasons. But as far as the CTMU is concerned,
it can have you for lunch. Why don't you try arguing with it again? It
eats things that disagree with it all the time.
You never learn, do you? You're still trying desperately to justify
your decade of asinine, logic-free opposition to what may be, for all you
know, the most advanced theoretical construct ever devised. But as you're
beginning to realize, you only dig your hole deeper every time you clear
your truth-twisting pipes.
> On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 18:45:14 -0400 (EDT), Chris wrote:
>
> > Subject: Re: [MegaList] Reply to Chris Langan, 4/11/99 (Part Two)
>
> >> On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 06:15:56 -0400 (EDT), Chris wrote:
>
> >>> Subject: Re: [MegaList] Is Langan a Heaviside: Part II
> >>>
> >>> Below is Bob Dick's latest attempt to get my goat. I started to
> >>> compose a detailed reply mentioning recent correspondence
> >>> with Noam Chomsky, Tom Wolfe, and so on...people far more
> >>> successful, and perhaps more intelligent, than almost anyone in
> >>> this group. But I caught myself and pressed "cancel". Why?
> >>> Because nothing one says to a yapping lapdog like Bob Dick
> >>> will ever make him shut up. All Kevin Langdon has to do is
> >>> stick a biscuit under his snout, and Bob will raise the roof to
> >>> earn his treat.
>
> >> Here is more deeply offensive language.
>
> > Too bad. Curb your yappy friend, or it gets worse.
>
> I'd suggest that you put a damper on it. I can't speak for all Mega
> members about exactly where the civility limits here might be,
> but whatever the limits are, you're the champ in the bad behavior
> department.
All I ask is to be addressed civilly, as opposed to being called a "crank"
out of the blue by people with no room to talk. Since you've always relied
on the bad behavior of your Langdonoid cult zombies to prop you up in
times of opposition, you have no right to complain when somebody gives it
back to them.
> If you're right, why do you need the nasty stuff?
Because being right has historically had nothing to do with how one is
treated in this group. And because "nasty stuff" is all that certain
people pay attention to. Evidently, the only way to make you look closely
at something is to clock you over the head with it, and even *that*
doesn't work most of the time.
> >>> However, I would like to say something about intellectual
> >>> progress. The greatest inroads are often made by people out of
> >>> the mainstream. Why? Precisely because they have nothing to
> >>> lose by being conspicuously less mediocre than their more
> >>> successful colleagues, who ignore them and pat each other on
> >>> the back for repeating each other's mistakes. What the world
> >>> needs now is not another crop of academic parrots, but at least
> >>> one real supergenius. For this, future generations of humanity
> >>> - the ones who stand to benefit from the most advanced work
> >>> done today - would, if the choice were theirs, gladly trade a
> >>> million second-rate, oxygen-wasting Dicklike hacks and call it
> >>> a bargain.
>
> >> The "supergenius" always needs to derogate someone else in
> >> order to make himself look good.
>
> > Like you derogate me in the above statement, you mean? And by
> > the way, is it or is it not true that the mega threshold could
> > reasonably be labeled with the term "supergenius"?
>
> It is not true. IQ is only the *potential* for genius, "super" or
> otherwise.
How true. But some people do indeed associate certain IQ levels with
genius. If it makes you feel better, stick "potential" in front of
each occurrence of "supergenius" in this message.
>
> > You're insulting the very premise of this group!
>
> More projection. Your attempted usurpation of the editorship of
> *Noesis* and the authority to make decisions for the Mega Society,
> including admitting unqualified people to your version of Mega,
> your attempts to dumb down our admission standards, and your
> intemperate statements about other members of the society have
> done more damage to the Mega Society than Paul Maxim has been
> able to do with all his frothing at the mouth.
Dry up. As everyone familiar with the history of this group is well aware,
you and Chris Cole are the original "usurpers". And I never make an
intemperate statement about anyone unless they make one, and usually more
than one, about me first. For example, the reason I make a lot of
apparently unkind statements about *you* is that I finally got fed up with
having you publicly festoon my name with every complex, disorder and
syndrome in the Dictionary of Abnormal Psychology, simply because you
don't know enough logic to think your way out of a wet barf bag. You and
your friends are just getting what you deserve, and everbody knows it.
> >>> The Mega Society does not exist for $500 intellectual whores
> >>> like Bob Dick (not, mind you, that Bob shouldn't be proud
> >>> that he finally sold an article; it's just that the paltry, stinking
> >>> $500 he was paid is obviously what he considers the most
> >>> important part of his achievement).
>
> >> It seems to be a rahter important part for Chris, too. It makes
> >> him envious, and that makes him cruel.
>
> > What's your support for the notion that money is the driving
> > force behind my theorization?
>
> I'm not talking about your "theorization"; I'm talking about your
> cruel characterization of others and your reactivity to others'
> success at anything.
Believe me when I tell you that whatever success you or Bob Dick has
achieved in this world isn't considerable enough to draw my attention,
much less arouse my envy.
> >>> Rather, the Mega Society exists to nurture real geniuses...the
> >>> ones who can expect no appreciation from academia, because
> >>> they can too easily make academia look bad.
>
> >> ...except Kevin Langdon, who will be crushed like a bug by
> >> the psychometric establishment.
>
> > Quite so. And nothing he says can change that. In fact, his style
> > of self-expression all but *guarantees* that.
>
> It's a testable proposition. We shall see.
Is that a promise?
>
> On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:37:21 -0400 (EDT), Chris wrote:
>
> > Subject: Re: [MegaList] Langan is not a Heaviside
>
> > On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 GR2rojad@aol.com (that's Bob Dick)
> > wrote:
>
> >> Chris Langan has said or implied:
> >>
> >> 1) He wants his work reviewed by his intellectual peers, the
> >> members of the Mega Society.
> >> 2) NObody has approved of his work, not even among his
> >> intellectual peers, except a few famous people in casual
> >> exchanges of letters.
> >> 3) Nevertheless he, Chris, is a supergenius.
>
> > Actually, I have not directly called myself a "supergenius". I
> > don't have to. The Mega Society selects all of its applicants to be
> > "supergeniuses", at least in potential. That's the meaning of our
> > qualification standard. Of course, woe betide the one who states
> > this in front of Bob Dick. No one is more fearless than Mr. Dick
> > when it comes to defending the high standards of mediocrity that
> > he and Mr. Langdon have set for this group.
>
> There's some truth in this. As Editor of *Noesis*, I have had to
> live with the fact that I am not receiving submissions on the order
> of *On the Origin of Species* or the special theory of relativity.
We've already established that you can't even come close to telling the
difference. In light of this indisputable fact, sending such contributions
to *you* would be like slopping the hogs with pate de foie gras avec
truffe. We're talking "pearls before swine" here.
> But high standards of mediocrity beat the hell out of mediocre
> standards of "high."
I knew you were high on something.
>
> >> Thus, sorted out from all the chaff and crap we see that Chris
> >> agrees with me that he is a crackpot. I will attempt in the future
> >> to decline battles of wits with this unarmed man.
>
> > Does Dick have a bug up his rear? Aside from his mentor Kevin,
> > that's the only possible reason I can think of for the "we".
>
> "We see," as in "it should be apparent to everyone who's been
> following this exchange," not as in "We are all Langdonoids here."
Unfortunately, *you* haven't been following this exchange. It's been
following you, kicking your know-it-all butt up around your ears with
every other step.
Chris Langan
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 20:19:25 -0700
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [MegaList] Re: A Personal Reply to Chris Langan
At 05:41 AM 4/14/99 -0400, Chris Langan wrote:
> It's getting late, and I'm getting tired. So instead of trimming a lot of
> this unnecessarily long message, I'm sending it as is.
Instead of snipping this gratuitious paragraph, I am replying to it. In
fact, I am replying to it at length. Why? Because of my insatiable ego.
> On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Kevin Langdon wrote:
<snip>
>>>>>> And how can I be a "philosopher"? I haven't been
elected by
>>>>>> the ISPE.
>>>>> No. But you did manage to get yourself booted out of it on
>>>>> grounds of inveterate Nietzscheism.
>>>> The five founders of TNS were kicked out of the ISPE for founding
>>>> TNS to provide ISPE members with a democratic alternative. Only
>>>> someone intent on making points at the expense of honesty would
>>>> cite this as anything but a badge of honor.
>>> If that were true, then you wouldn't be the bugaboo of TNS today.
>> I'm the bugaboo of all tyrants in the higher-IQ societies. The current
>> leadership of TNS is keeping official business secret from the
>> membership and violating the TNS Constitution in a number of ways
>> and they've removed the high-range power tests from TNS' list of
>> qualifying scores.
> And yet, I and a majority of others seem to get along with the TNS
> leadership just fine.
Most people don't care about the governance of societies they belong to.
I agree with Chris, up to a point, that one takes on certain responsibilities
when one joins one of these societies. And one of the most important
ones is to pay enough attention to be able to tell the good guys from the
bad guys in the organizational conflicts that erupt from time to time.
What is a good guy? The good guy is for honesty, democracy, and
member rights and against official secrecy, coercion of members by
officers, and violation of agreed-upon operating rules
It remains the case that people are often taken in by demagogues who
promise them peace at the expense of principle, which is not peace at
all but a conspiracy of silence about the way those in power use that
power to silence and punish their enemies. It's too bad that that works
much of the time.
As for Chris, well, birds of a feather . . .
<snip>
>> Chris continues to draw conclusions about other people's motives
>> without evidence.
> "Without evidence"? How about telling us where we can look and
> *not* find some evidence?
You seem to be able to find "evidence" whether it's there or not.
>>> And as his analogy shows, his psychological idiosyncrasies happen
>>> to include a John Phillip Souza complex.
>> Whereas Chris has had trouble finding anyone to join his "band."
> That's because I only play with the best.
Right. Like Paul Maxim.
<snip>
>>> First, brains consist of neurons, and are therefore neural networks.
>>> So certain aspects of the basic mechanics are present in the most
>>> general neural models.
>> Brains consist of atoms and are therefore atomic networks, but this
>> may not be the most fruitful way to study them.
> Maybe not. Then again, you can't make a contrary assertion either.
There are many ways to study. The burden of proof is on the proponents
of any particular way to show its advantages.
> Ever read "Shadows of the Mind" by Roger Penrose? Here's another
> theory you can't rule out, and for the potential truth of which you
> must allow.
I haven't read that book, but it's on my "intend to read" list already.
Penrose is one of the people that fall into the class that Chris contends
we should admit without testing. He's a highly creative mathematician,
physicist, and cognitive scientist who's had many interesting ideas.
Of course no distinguished real genius would be likely to embarrass
himself by joining the Mega Society anyway. And if he *weren't*
distinguished how would we recognize him?
<snip>
>>> Meanwhile, I'm on the inside of any field I *want* to be inside
>>> of, intellectually speaking. That's what a high IQ is good for.
>> Who do you think you're kidding? That's what you've been
>> complaining that a high IQ *isn't getting you* for a long time.
> Wrong. Where a high IQ doesn't get you is inside the CLUB, not the
> field. To a complete sucker for academia like you, the club *is* the
> field.
I'm no sucker for academia; I'm more the kind of sucker who doesn't
stay with the program and winds up without credentials, which after
a while is just a pain in the ass.
I've been close to the guys who are making a difference in many fields,
over the years; as I assume the rest of you know, this is not terribly
hard to do, given the interest and a certain investment of energy.
>>> And what I'm saying to *you*, Kevin Langdon, is that I know
>>> more about the subject than you do. Probably a *lot* more!
>> As stated a few paragraphs back, "the subject" is "cerebral
>> organization and mechanics." For simplicity, let's call it "how the
>> brain (or mind) works." I see evidence only that you have some
>> math background and you've had some interesting insights into
>> this and that, not that you have a uniquely penetrating "theory
>> of everything," as you claim, or even a comprehensive brain/
>> mind model.
> There you go again...making judgments on that which you don't
> understand. My theory of intelligence is actually pretty advanced;
> I'm not prepared to go into it here for my own reasons.
I will refrain from speculating about Chris' "reasons," but until he
presents his material on this subject he can't very well expect others
to give him credit for it.
> But as far as the CTMU is concerned, it can have you for lunch.
We keep missing these lunch dates.
> Why don't you try arguing with it again? It eats things that disagree
> with it all the time.
If *it* is *you* (and you certainly seem to think that *you* are *it*),
that would explain your disposition.
> You never learn, do you? You're still trying desperately to justify
> your decade of asinine, logic-free opposition to what may be, for
> all you know, the most advanced theoretical construct ever devised.
What I have been opposed to for a decade is your grandiose,
unsubstantiated claims. For all I know, you could be a potential
supergenius who just couldn't adjust to how stupid everybody else
is and got the heebie-jeebies on account of that. But if that's the case
your theory is of no more practical use for apes like us than Einstein's
theory is for Koko the gorilla.
> But as you're beginning to realize, you only dig your hole deeper
> every time you clear your truth-twisting pipes.
I must be even stupider than Chris thinks I am, because I have not
begun to realize anything of the sort.
<snip>
>> I'd suggest that you put a damper on it. I can't speak for all Mega
>> members about exactly where the civility limits here might be,
>> but whatever the limits are, you're the champ in the bad behavior
>> department.
> All I ask is to be addressed civilly, as opposed to being called a
> "crank" out of the blue by people with no room to talk. Since
> you've always relied on the bad behavior of your Langdonoid
> cult zombies to prop you up in times of opposition, you have no
> right to complain when somebody gives it back to them.
You're asking for too much. In the academic world toward which
you seem to have an ambivalent attitude, every scientist knows that
there will be people in his field who will shoot holes in his theories
if they can, but he refrains from boasting about his superiority to
these others and from belittling them personally, takes their
criticisms seriously, and listens to *their* theories. They consider
themselves colleagues and often become friends. You tend to take
disagreement of any kind as evidence of stupidity, insanity, and/or
Langdonoidicity.
Your labeling of people whose views have happened to coincide
with mine on one thing or another at some time as "Langdonoids"
is insulting, offensive, and unfair. There is also an implied threat
to those silently following this exchange that if they should rashly
agree with anything I'm saying in these arguments with you, they
would be on the receiving end of the same kind of crude invective
that has been leveled at Bob Dick and others whom you perceive
as "Langdonoids."
>> If you're right, why do you need the nasty stuff?
> Because being right has historically had nothing to do with how
> one is treated in this group.
Treated, shmeated. Who's "treated"? I write my stuff, often
disagreeing with one thing or another that's been printed in
*Noesis*, and send it to the Editor. My stuff gets published. The
other guy's stuff, often disagreeing with *me*, gets published too.
(This was going on long before I became Editor of *Noesis*.)
We go back and forth. Maybe sometimes we arrive at some
common ground. The same thing goes on on this list. One
person says one thing to me, has one attitude. With another I
have a different relationship. I am not being "treated" any
particular way by the society as a whole. And I'm sure that's
the experience of the great majority of members who have
participated actively in the affairs of the society.
> And because "nasty stuff" is all that certain people pay attention
> to. Evidently, the only way to make you look closely at
> something is to clock you over the head with it, and even *that*
> doesn't work most of the time.
I am very much opposed to what you're saying here. You don't
have a right to steal other people's attention via rhetorical violence,
but that's a major part of your way of operating.
<snip>
>>> You're insulting the very premise of this group!
>> More projection. Your attempted usurpation of the editorship of
>> *Noesis* and the authority to make decisions for the Mega Society,
>> including admitting unqualified people to your version of Mega,
>> your attempts to dumb down our admission standards, and your
>> intemperate statements about other members of the society have
>> done more damage to the Mega Society than Paul Maxim has been
>> able to do with all his frothing at the mouth.
> Dry up. As everyone familiar with the history of this group is well
> aware, you and Chris Cole are the original "usurpers". And I never
> make an intemperate statement about anyone unless they make one,
> and usually more than one, about me first.
I see. So how many wrongs *does* it take to make a right?
> For example, the reason I make a lot of apparently unkind
> statements about *you* is that I finally got fed up with having you
> publicly festoon my name with every complex, disorder and
> syndrome in the Dictionary of Abnormal Psychology, simply
> because you don't know enough logic to think your way out of a
> wet barf bag.
1. "Apparently," my elbow.
2. You have the causality backward there, Mr. Potential Supergenius.
3. Your talent for graphic metaphors is an interesting spectacle but
grows vearing.
> You and your friends are just getting what you deserve, and
> everbody knows it.
Every Chris Langan "knows" it.
>>>>> The Mega Society does not exist for $500 intellectual whores
>>>>> like Bob Dick (not, mind you, that Bob shouldn't be proud
>>>>> that he finally sold an article;
So he should be a *proud* whore.
>>>>> it's just that the paltry, stinking $500 he was paid is obviously
>>>>> what he considers the most important part of his achievement).
He was out of work for several months and he had a family to feed.
You don't suppose that could have had a little something to do with it?
Bob mentioned being paid for his published work, in pointed contrast
to your lack of success in the world beyond your own nose, only in
response to your insufferably patronizing remarks.
>>>> It seems to be a rahter important part for Chris, too. It makes
>>>> him envious, and that makes him cruel.
>>> What's your support for the notion that money is the driving
>>> force behind my theorization?
>> I'm not talking about your "theorization"; I'm talking about your
>> cruel characterization of others and your reactivity to others'
>> success at anything.
> Believe me when I tell you that whatever success you or Bob Dick
> has achieved in this world isn't considerable enough to draw my
> attention, much less arouse my envy.
Isn't it amazing? That's what anyone would think. And yet Chris is
obsessed with this stuff. It reminds me of what they say about
academic politics: it's extremely vicious because there's so little at
stake.
Kevin Langdon