How does it feel to know that the smartest man on the planet is a fat American creationist bartender who attended Montana State University and worked for twenty years as a construction worker and bouncer?
youtu.be
en.wikipedia.org
Pic related, it's Chrissy Langan, a certified genius with double your IQ (210, the highest ever recorded)
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
megasociety.com
youtube.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
>the highest ever recorded
Wrong.
>en.wikipedia.org
He's a creationist meaning he believes evolution was just an algorithm developed by God he doesn't outright believe man magically appeared 10,000 years ago.
If he wants to prove P=NP then sure go at it, Knuth who is also religious believes P=NP and will be discovered eventually, all religious mathematicians do for some reason.
>IQ
Listen to dude go on, hes high on his own supply
"He has been described as "the smartest man in America" as well as "the smartest man in the world" by some journalists."
wow some journalists say that? this guy must have solved lots of problems in math and physics and must have really progressed mankind's understanding of the universe.
>he's from my city
feelsgoodman
Morons.
Look at the boards in his videos.
He scribbled something about quarks and shit.
Embarrassing.
How does Veeky Forums shit on Psychologists so much yet are obsessed with a intelligence test designed by them?
Do some research on Langan's work, instead of assuming that his "scribbling" is "embarrassing". Langan has a top score on a famously difficult IQ test by Ron Hoeflin. He also attended Reed college in Portland, but left because of h8rs like you
Langan has written extensively on Decision Theory, which is a fundamental of programming machine-learning nowadays. He may not be the smartest, but statistically he would be smarter than every person posting on Veeky Forums.
>expecting Veeky Forums retards to make any sense
This is one of the dumbest boards, what do you expect?
The test verifying Langan's IQ was not created by a psychologist. Also Langan committed fraud to take Hoeflin s test under multiple names, like many others do.
Post links to original findings.
And to answer your question, psychology isn't an objective science and should not be considered in the same tier as engineering or mathematics. It is impossible to control all variable involving human behavior.
I would browse through the Noesis, he was once a prominent contributor. megasociety.com
>newfriend can't tell the difference between Veeky Forums's common opinions and bait
If you research his work you will find a bunch of laughable pseudo-philosophy babble that stupid people believe means something because they think someone smart said it. No one who has any expertise in anything Chris Langan pretends to talk about takes him seriously. He is a delusional fabulist, that's all.
And nice bait.
Unfortunately, you provide no evidence. That which is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence
However I am not going to work to disprove you, Langan is obviously a Megalomaniac
Although, you disproved yourself anyway
Provide evidence of a lack of coherency and a lack of experts taking him seriously? No it is you whose claims require evidence and which can be dismissed. Langan has no work in decision theory and the result of an IQ test is utterly irrelevant.
Still waiting on this.
Don't hold your breath, the guy is either a delusional fanboy or a troll. Probably the latter.
did he ever do the IQ test again?
IQ has very little to do with actual intelligence
>failed to do even a basic bachelor's degree
>because everyone else's fault!
Yeah ok bud. This is typical sore loser mentality: cling to the one stat that "validates your superiority" and them make up excuses to justify everything else you've failed on. He's the perfect example of how IQ says nothing at all beyond large sample statistics.
Paul Cooijmans is more interesting
Lol, college is irrelevant, it's the information age. This is true especially for an autodidact
I think you had a bad experience with an IQ test. You probably don't even have the gray matter to qualify a single anwser on a high-range IQ test
I'll be generous and assume you have an IQ of 132. That means 1 in 30 people can score as well as you do.It's the 98th percentile. An equivalent score to Langan or Cooijman's would mean that you are closer to the 99.999999 percentile. As it turns out, there are a handful of people on earth at around 5-6 standard deviations higher in intelligence when compared to you, at 132. It's like your CPU is not even comparable. Most of these individuals have found a life outside of academia, which allows them time to work on various things.
youtube.com
>tfw head is too big for a cap
>tfw cranial circumference is too great
>tfw 6 times the deviation above the norm
>in my personal opinion head size influence intelligence, SIZE DOES MATTER GUISE
>SEEMS THAT THERE'S A KIND OF CORRELATION GOING ON HMMM
>I CAN MEASURE MY HEAD BY VOLUMETRIC DISPLACEMENT USING ARCHIMEDES PRINCIPLE GUIES AM I SMART YET? I USED BIG WORDS!1!!
This man is a literal meme he's trying too fucking hard to look smart.
i just do it for the lolz
>lel lols brah yeah just go out there n get gud . literarture that ease xDD !
Did you notice how I stated "IQ says nothing beyond large sample statistics", did you? Because if you did, then you'd know that's just the basic principle of statistics: it can't say anything about [math]individuals[/math].
I'm not disputing whether people can score way outside the usual standard deviations but that:
1) clearly doesn't guarantee the person will generate actual, verifiable and relevant knowledge to humanity
2) Path of success is clearly much more than just "raw talent" and requires work, dedication and discipline which clearly this guy doesn't have if he decided to drop out of college and settle for a manual labor i.e. the easy way out
There's absolutely nothing controversial about this but the truth. Every year thousands of "gifted" kids get curated and reared into specialized programs yet many not end up better than their "slow" peers. While admittedly many of these kids have the talent clearly there are many other factors that will turn them into the influential superstars that many people blindly believe a high IQ will grant.
This guy youtu.be
We are talking about intelligence right? It seems to me that you are mistaking scientific productivity for intelligence... That is called a catagorical error.
Your post contains so many assumptions it is not difficult to see that you are not considering things clearly. You seem to be under the impression that intelligence and success dependant on one another. You must redefine intelligence and reframe your argument.
...
apparently, he wants to prove P != NP, which is more likely the case. he says he can, but i'll believe it when i see it.
An individual's abnormally high score on an IQ test does not indicate abnormally high intelligence, it indicates that that person has practiced on IQ tests. Creative achievement is the only reliable indicator of abnormally high intelligence. It is no surprise that the people who have such high scores almost unanimously have no achievement beyond that. They are actually less smart than many of the people who score lower.
Since when does a high IQ make you smart?
Answering the types of questions on a high-range intelligence test requires a eclectic synthesis of knowledge. Creative achievement alone is an unreliable measurement for intelligence because of its subjective form. Creative success is by no means a definitive indicator of intelligence. By that scale Miley Cyrus or Kanye West, or Banksy or whatever, would be considered more intelligent than Ed Witten or Ruth Lawrence. Boom.
Answering the types of questions on a high-range intelligence test requires a eclectic synthesis of knowledge. Creative achievement alone is an unreliable measurement for intelligence because of its subjective form. Creative success is by no means a definitive indicator of intelligence. By that scale Miley Cyrus or Kanye West, or Banksy or whatever, would be considered more intelligent than Ed Witten or Ruth Lawrence. Boom.
>Answering the types of questions on a high-range intelligence test requires a eclectic synthesis of knowledge.
The questions are arbitrary and the system can always be gamed since there is a specific "type" of question.
>Creative achievement alone is an unreliable measurement for intelligence because of its subjective form. Creative success is by no means a definitive indicator of intelligence.
Intelligence itself is subjective and there is no definitive measure of intelligence because there is no definitive intelligence.
As I have already explained, IQ is an unreliable measure of intelligence because it can be gamed.
>By that scale Miley Cyrus or Kanye West, or Banksy or whatever, would be considered more intelligent than Ed Witten or Ruth Lawrence. Boom.
Which scale? No, Miley Cyrus' achievements are not greater than Witten's. On the other hand, Chris Langan has a higher IQ score than Witten yet is not more intelligent, as all he can manage to create is pseudo-philosophical babble to preserve his fabulist ego. You lose.
Those people very well may be smarter than Ed Witten or Ruth Lawrence, though.
How do you know Ed Witten has a higher IQ score than Kanye West? Oh because Kanye West raps while Ed Witten is a physicist? You mean you measured their intelligence based on their achievements?
It is worth pointing out that there is a *huge* difference between regular Stanford-Binet type IQ tests when compared to the other various high-range IQ tests
Now you're desperately arguing semantics. Quit reaching, and you shouldn't insult Ed Witten when he may be watching
I just want to elucidate how he objectively measured Kanye's intelligence through IQ, which is the only reliable method of course.
IQ testing is the only reliable way to judge intelligence. Creative efforts can possibly be attributed to genius, but not intelligence.
Yeah, I used your methodology to attribute intelligence to Kanye. You disproved your own point.
> IQ testing is the only reliable way to judge intelligence.
Please don't come to Veeky Forums anymore. I mean, you're insecure about your own intelligenc, I get that but please.. we both know you don't belong here if you actualy believe this to be a fact.
No no no, you misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking for your feelings, I want actual scientific evidence.
Genius is abnormally high intelligence, so that makes no sense.
IQ is not reliable as the highest scorers are not more intelligent than lower scorers.
No, you just claimed that Kanye West's intellectual achievements are greater than Wittens. That is not my methodology. Your methology on the other hand tells you that an egotistical fabulist is more intelligent than Einstein. You lose.
I agree, IQ testing is the only reliable way to measure intelligence
Inability to detect sarcasm does not speak well towards your intelligence my friend.
>Skankhunt42
Probably just some middle aged Jewish guy
Incorrect. A genius is any individual who has created great change in any given field. Intelligence is no requirement for that.
Go ahead and speak for yourself, your projections are interesting.
Einstein obviously ddn't have access to the same test as Langan lol.
Very interesting projection' here
Intelligence is required for that, and no that's not what a genius is defined as
1. exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability.
synonyms: brilliance, intelligence, intellect, ability, cleverness, brains, erudition, wisdom, fine mind;
2. a person who is exceptionally intelligent or creative, either generally or in some particular respect.
I've already proven my point, you are just grasping at straws. Langan has taken many tests, that how he scores high. But you think Einstein would have scored higher than Langan? Can you point to a single person with exceptional intellectual achievements who has scored higher than Langan? Are they just all stupid? Or is IQ a system that can be gamed if you want to trick people into thinking you are intelligent when you actually aren't?
I'm still waiting for that evidence of how exactly Chris Langan is intelligent.
This is you - A category mistake, or category error, or categorical mistake, or mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category"
Go ahead and refer to a dictionary, I'll do it too.
Take your meds.
This is boring, you're not putting up a fight. I'm out.
So you're on meds? Do you know what it means to project?
Indeed. Now fuck off.
whats the relation with being religious and believing that it will be solved?
Sorry
Thought it was funny, now I don't. Langan is a megalomaniac.
Do it for the lolz
believing things without evidence
So he's intelligent, but not very smart.
...
I thought that P = NP (And that the solution cures autism) was solved a few days ago on a twitch stream.
make cranial circumference great again
>P=NP
That's only true if N=1, though.
0
>fat american bartender who attended Montana State University and worked for twenty years as a construction worker and bouncer
>smartest man on earth
Choose one
Lmao
>are you a genius?
>Well you are putting me on a spot here, I have two options how to reply
Wow, look guys, he analyzed the question and marked it as binary, wow.
Don't let it get to your head, mate. SF is a queer/degenerate mecca. Hang in there.
Any true genius would have said "Well it's all a matter of perspective" giving a third answer to the question.
Well, he's probably going to be the best at calculating things, putting square blocks in square holes and remembering other things.
But, that's only one aspect of "smartest".
The dude that made the meme drive is arguably equally as smart, even though his IQ would be far lower.
Holy shit my uncle would make minced meat out of this guy on the intelligence level, IQ doesn't mean shit. being learned and taking the time to be learned is what it means to be a true intellectual, not LOL my IQ is 210.
>Let's have a ultra small society that dictates the rules, get's corrupt and then there is no one to stop them because the masses are too dumb.
Great plan let's call it the Illuminati.