I saw some information about Chris Langan (who I had remembered as Chris Mangan), who Malcolm Gladwell wrote about in The Outliers as a person of exceptionally high tested intelligence but few other qualities necessary for success in most fields. I had a run-in with him at Quora in an IQ discussion five years ago or so, and when I pointed out that while his claims were possible and in some cases even likely, there were places where they were not as supported as he was putting forward. His score on Ron Hoeflin's Mega Test is truly remarkable, though there are some possible ways it could have been at least a bit plumped up. His wife also scored well, for example and he could have collaborated with her, and with any other person he thought might also be top-shelf in that sort of test. Or could even have cribbed from them. And the fact that he was granted a retake, which is usually not allowed, is disquieting. He claims to have gotten perfect SAT's despite taking a nap. Anyone can say it.
Yet even at worst, he must be pretty darn good at this stuff.
My interaction was that he made vague but bullying threats of going to law with me for pointing out that he had lost his court case in New Jersey to use the word Mega in his Mega Foundation, which he had gotten because he was in the Mega Society, which had the name already in a clearly related activity. I called some of the people I had known years ago, and they all thought he was legitimately intelligent but had been a headache every minute he was in any of the IQ societies. Now he is writing a good bit of philosophy based on proofs he has devised that he claims are"based on no assumptions." As that is impossible - we must at minimum assume something about language and the presence of other humans to have words mean anything - I didn't pursue his proof of the existence of God further. He is reportedly veering into conspiracy stuff now, like Twin Towers stuff. He makes me think of Ron Unz in that.
So I ran across some newer stuff and I thought "I'm just too tired. Don't bother to post it." And after that lead in you would think that would mean I decided to say that quiet part out loud and write about my small fragment of special insider knowledge. Nope. It doesn't teach anything and could possibly attract stupid arguments. He is who he is, and what others have said is close enough for me.
4 comments:
He wasn't granted a retake. He just submitted a second answer sheet under a fake name.
Whoa. That tells you something.
Here's his own retelling of the story:
"I've explained this 20 times. Here it is again.
I was working as a bouncer and needed a journal with an intellectual readership in which to publish my ideas.
Omni magazine published an issue ballyhooing "the world's hardest IQ test", promising that anyone who achieved a score of 42/48 would be admitted to "the Mega Society", a one-in-a-million HIQ club run by Ron Hoeflin.
I ascertained that the Mega Society had a journal. Then I worked on the test until I was sure I had 42 correct answers, and sent in an answer sheet. (Bear in mind that I was working multiple jobs plus doing demanding intellectual work, and didn't have a lot of spare time to waste on taking mail-order tests. It never occurred to me that anything other than the promised membership was at stake, so I had no reason to continue after I was sure I'd made the cutoff.)
Sure enough, I got a letter back stating that I'd achieved the cutoff score of 42. However, this letter regretfully informed me that the author of the test, Dr. Hoeflin, had suddenly decided to up the cutoff to 43, hence was reneging on the promised admission to the Mega Society. (It's important that everyone get this straight: there was a bait-and-switch, plain and simple.)
Naturally, I felt rooked, but there was no rule against a repeat performance. As the test was not multiple choice, and as subjects were not provided with corrected answer sheets, there was no valid reason to disallow multiple attempts. I therefore took the test again, this time under a pseudonym. The pseudonym was chosen because my radar detector had been set off by the bait-and-switch; I wasn't sure I'd be allowed to try again under the new cutoff, and I needed access to that journal. I also reasoned that a nom de plume might allow me to publish material on certain controversial topics without being attacked under my real name.
My second score was the highest on the test. Furthermore, it was achieved in the very early days of the test, before any of the answers had yet been passed around. (A later test subject, one "James Tetazoo", would later be found to consist of several MIT students who had pooled their efforts and shared the answers. Even they failed to beat my score.)
Perhaps I should add that the only problem I "missed" on this test was the *easiest* problem on the test (it was later found to be non-discriminatory above a certain unimpressive score, far below the level at which I scored). I missed it only because I lacked access to a decent library and had no statistics dictionary. (The correct answer was "nonile"; to my recollection, I answered "novile", thus missing the correct answer by one letter. Just another feared and hated Langan neologism gone wrong.) So as far as relevance to the scaling is concerned, I achieved a perfect score on the Mega Test despite working three shifts at three different bars, and well before others famous for scoring highly on this test managed to make their marks.
I have no apologies for this chain of events. My score was valid. This story was recounted to Esquire, ABC 20/20, and other media outlets. They verified it. On gathering additional data - ABC even insisted that I be independently tested using the WAIS (full battery) - they decided to make me their HIQ poster boy anyway. If the truth be told, it's a damned good thing for the intellectual future of mankind that they did.
Subsequently, smarting like jealous schoolboys after being outshone, a small handful of notorious HIQ trolls evidently decided to spread the story that my score on the Mega Test was not valid. This was, and remains, a lie. In fact, many of those who took the test repeated it, and no one ever said a word. The trolls specialized in my case alone.
Now enough of this nonsense. I've been listening to this garbage for 30 years, and I'm fed up with it.
Thanks for your attention."
Thank you for this, Ganzir. I am struck by two opposite things here. First, that his claims seem plausible, and we might decide that the most fair outcome is to give him credit. But on the other hand, how many athletes and entertainers and people in many other professions have similar stories. "I coulda been a contendah." But the ball took and odd bounce, or a coach or manager was incompetent.
He made assumptions that turned out to be wrong. Answering only up until he was sure of 42 correct was not a psychotic assumption - but it also wasn't a very good one. You take a test with 48 questions to see what score you will get. The assumption is "Take the test and see what score you get." People a lot less intelligent than him got that right. All his busyness and intellectual work was something everyone else was facing as well.
Langan is probably very smart, really top shelf. But his life story is excuse after excuse, blaming others, and if you don't figure out some very basic things, you aren't going to get the prize.
Post a Comment