Langan's off-the-chart IQ cannot be measured with conventional standardized tests; it can only be estimated with experimental high-ceiling tests, which put his IQ at between 195 and 210. He began talking at 6 months, taught himself to read before he turned 4, and he used these early-acquired reading skills to learn about Egyptology as a young child and to explore the writing of Dostoyevski, Darwin, Russel and Einstein in his early teens. While he never finished college, he did develop his own theory of reality, which he calls a "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" (CTMU).
In the USA, the median score is a 100 on standard IQ tests, but different groups have a different average score, for instance, it is 115 among college graduates. A score between 90 and 110 indicates average intelligence, a score above 130 indicates exceptional intelligence and a score below 70 usually indicates a mental deficiency. The difference between a person with average intelligence and a person with an intellectual deficiency is about 35 points, while the difference between Langan and an average person is a 100 points. So even if you have an exceptionally high 130 IQ, the difference between Langan's score and yours is 70 points, which is twice as much as the difference between someone with average intelligence and someone who is labeled with "mental retardation".
It must be extremely frustrating for Langan to live his life among people who are vastly inferior to him intellectually, so no wonder he tries to remedy this situation. In an interview, Langan espouses genetic engineering and suggests placing genetic control over "human breeding":
"People who wanted to have children would apply to make sure they have no diseases. Why do we have to do it through genetic engineering? Well, we have to let only the fit breed ... Freedom is not necessarily a right. It is a privilege that you have to earn. A lot of people abuse their freedom and that is something that people have to be trained not to do."
When asked who would be in charge of this training, he volunteers himself. But before anybody becomes too indignant, I would like to point out that apart his gigantic IQ, Langan is not terribly different from those who believe that you can take away basic human rights based on someone's intellectual ability. The same sentiments lie at the core of his reasoning, he just has a higher standard for "personhood"that are in proportion of his own cognitive abilities, and eugenicist ideas feel different when you are the one who is considered inferior. If he gets his way, "average" will be the new "retard", so you might wanna get your breeding and your medical needs taken care of soon, in case he decides to run for president.
Except for his creepy eugenicist ideas, Chris Langan seems like an amiable, pleasant person and his brilliance is undeniable. Enjoy the video.
18 comments:
Thanks for the good read. I can't say that I agree with him, but he sounds like an interesting guy. I can't imagine how frustrating it must be to be that bright living in this world. His life must feel like the movie 'Idiocracy'.
PS. I think it's intriguing that he's willing to sacrifice the freedoms of those he considers inferior for the 'greater good of mankind', but not his own. After all, considering his intellectual superiority and applying his own reasoning that the success of the species outweighs the rights of the few, shouldn't he be being studied somewhere in a lab rather than working as a bouncer? I don't personally agree with that statement, but if you live by the sword, you ought to die by it too.
Intelligence, commonsense, ethics, compassion are variables totally independent of each other. Intelligence is perhaps of the lowest value among these virtues.
Not really espousing a new "intelligent" idea...I recently read (true or false) that in cases of prenatal screening for Down Syndrome, 90% of people choose to abort. Logan's eugenics is in action already as the number of births of Down babies is sharply declining. I am pro-choice, but not on the basis of potential disability whose level of severity cannot be predicted. It simply implies and reinforces the notion that the disabled cannot be happy and integral to mankind. Is the greater good of mankind a homogeneous, pure, uber-intelligent society of automatons? Oh, that's a carryover from the intelligent movement of 1939-1943/45. Makes me crazy and wanting to limit "breeding" only to empathetic people....
High intellectual capacity should be a pure advantage. I have known quite a few people for whom it hasn't been, though, and it's hard to say how the complications that accompanied the considerable brain-power of these individuals might have been predicted or mitigated. I didn't feel like watching the video, but doubt that whatever he has to say would change my opinion that things ain't always so simple... It's entertaining that he works as a bouncer! Maybe he was written by Philip K Dick.
I'm confused.
This goes to show once againg that IQ and EQ do not necessarily need to be at the same level. In my opinion, EQ is the more important thing and he fails at that miserably.
Intellectual capacity is unrelated to empathy or even common sense.
I'm not saying it can't be useful, only that it's not necessarily the most important trait of any human being, even though it is elevated as such by large sections of Western cultures.
What a high IQ allows you to do is make connections and recognise patterns with greater speed than others, and see things that others would miss. However, it doesn't make you immune from seeing patterns that aren't there, and it certainly doesn't necessarily make you a nice or caring person.
Back in my early 20s I joined Mensa - the society for the top 2% on the IQ scale. All I found was that it was a society for people who were good at doing IQ tests. Other than that everyone was as varied in their socio-political outlooks, religion, sexuality and ability to empathise or communicate as the rest of the population. Except that most had a smug sense of superiority.
I did not renew my membership and have remained extremely sceptical of anyone pushing the idea of intellectual superiority ever since.
My momma saaayyysss "Stupid is as stupid does" or "talks" in this case...
Okay, so having reread my post, I'm not sure if the point I was trying to make has come across, which I guess, is a sign of bad writing. I was trying to make a parallel between the "personhood" question discussed in my last two posts and Langan's eugenicist views. Similarly to those who try take away human rights from people with intellectual disabilities, Langan believes that freedom and rights should be earned by meeting certain intellectual criteria. The difference is, that Langan sets his intellectual criteria higher as he feels that people with only average intelligence are inferior and cannot be trusted with certain decisions. I believe that intelligence is a vastly overemphasize component of our humanity, and emotionality, conscience, morality, empathy, compassion are equally important.
Oh, and thanks for all the excellent comments!
OK, so I saw this post last night, and I was just kind of held up by the video of the guy. I mean, it's scary the things he is saying. It's scary to see the pain he has gone through because of his "difference" as a child, and yet, he's kind of still living by that difference. And so, he's willing for those who don't meet up to his standard to be considered less than. And, the funny thing is, that's what he experienced as a kid growing up. I feel bad for this guy. I mean, he's a smart man, an intelligent man, and he could probably see things quicker than I can, figure things out quicker than I can, know more information than I could know. but, he's missing compassion, and empathy, and those things you wrote in your comment, erika. i believe we were created with minds and brains to use them, but we also have emotion, conscience, morality, empathy and compassion that should be used. the stuff this guy is saying is really scary and frightening to me. please forgive my long written ramble.
Absolutely fascinating, erika - thank you for sharing this enigma of a man. The previous comments are all astute and no surprise to me that Kim test high. Everyone here seems to be well right of the top of the bell curve and still have an understanding of the benefits of for accepting the full range of human ability. We are better people for accepting each other as the people we become.
I cannot help but wonder if he has ever had a loving, monogamous relationship with another person and/or if he hopes/intends to procreate himself.
I hope to draw some of the community that includes and accepts persons with autism over to this post.
Az en nem tul magas intelligenciahanyadosommal :) azt figyeltem meg az evek soran, hogy azok, akik ertelmi, IQ teren kimagasloan teljesitenek, azok a tobbi (erzelmi, szocialis) teren viszont nagy hianyossagokkal kuzkodnek. Es ez a teoria ugy veszem eszre, hogy ennel a pasinal is bebizonyosodni latszik.
Ki mondja meg, hogy milyen kriteria alapjan szelektaljunk embereket, es mi jobb az emberisegnek? Nem vagyok egyaltalan biztos abban, hogy ha sok 170es IQju ember rohangalna a vilagban, akkor szebb es jobb lenne ez a fold, mintha mindenki magas pontszamot erne el az erzelmi intelligencia meresenel, viszont kevesbe lenne IQ betyar....En szemely szerint inkabb elnek az utobbi vilagban, mint az elsoben. (mar csak azert is, mert irtora kilognek az elsobol :)).
De erdekes volt olvasni es hallani rola. Koszi a cikket!
I'm still confused, and it's not your writing Erika. I'm still confused by high-IQ Amber on Nantucket Island, so you can imagine my state with this dude.
I'm sorry that I can't add to the conversation --
I'm not the best writer on the block but the following url makes a point that I tried to express.
http://www.schuylersmonsterblog.com/2011/05/seeing-god-perhaps.html
meg mindig ezen a pasin, es a mondottakon agyalok....es azon, hogy ha valaki tenyleg ennyire "okos", akkor miert kidobokent kamatoztatja a tudasat, ahol koztudottan a "tobbet erovel, mint esszel" alapelvet alkalmazzak.
Meg a masik: vajon, ha lenne gyereke (nem tudom, hogy van-e), es o lenne hatranyos helyzetu, vagy altala "nem utodnemzesre alkalmas", akkor is igy gondolkodna-e, vagy akkor szorulna bele egy kis empatia megis?
Szoval az en fogaskerekeim meg ma is ezeken kattognak :)
I see your point, Erika, and applaud it, it's brilliant. Also, Chris Langan's story leads me to another conclusion that I think is worth sharing: I think his story goes full circle. First of all, high IQ is a special need. I think the "smartest guy in the world" part are just words that newspapers reporting on Langan's supposedly fascinating story use. In reality, identifying the "smartest person in the world" is much more complicated and the psychometric approach to human intelligence (the idea of standardized tests that measure IQ) is being criticized for disregarding many other aspects of mental ability. Any way, he was a high IQ (gifted) kid. Didn't receive support that would tend to his special needs. Was from a poor family, abused by stepfather, couldn't afford to finish college. He was denied access to academia, denied access to collaborate with other thinkers so he could come up with ideas that are balanced and useful. Now he works at a bar and says sociopathic things on youtube which in effect call for further elimination of people with special needs, or rather of people in any way special, through the implementation of an universal belief system and totalitarian control of all aspects of human life (which is what I read in what he proposes).
Check out this thread where Chris himself has commented. It's a bit scary.
http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2011/02/11/another-crank-comes-to-visit-the-cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe/
Post a Comment