Why this shithead famous?

Has this shit head done anything of real value? I literally anything else on him except he has a big iq. Why is everyone jerking him off?

Other urls found in this thread:

teleologic.org/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>Why this shithead famous?
because he has a high IQ

>Has this shit head done anything of real value?
no, but you can attempt to read his CTMU if you want, I've never seen anyone able to obtain anything of intellectual worth from it

> Why is everyone jerking him off?
who? normies have certainly never heard of him

iq becomes less and less as the number increases

Are you trying to say it has diminishing returns?

No,less and less accurate.

>Why this shithead famous?
Because he's a fraud.
>Has this shit head done anything of real value?
No.
Look at the board in one of his videos.
Looks like what an extremely naive person would expect to find in a genius' blackboard.
He's an utter ass.

>QUARKS?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>Down the shitter it goes.

Good read

teleologic.org/
>The Third Option
>Determinacy and indeterminacy…at first glance, there seems to be no middle ground. Events are either causally connected or they are not, and if they are not, then the future would seem to be utterly independent of the past. Either we use causality to connect the dots and draw a coherent picture of time, or we settle for a random scattering of independent dots without spatial or temporal pattern and thus without meaning. At the risk of understatement, the philosophical effects of this assumed dichotomy have been corrosive in the extreme. No universe that exists or evolves strictly as a function of external determinacy, randomness or an alternation of the two can offer much in the way of meaning. Where freedom and volition are irrelevant, so is much of human experience and individuality.
>But there is another possibility after all: self-determinacy. Self-determinacy is like a circuitous boundary separating the poles of the above dichotomy…a reflexive and therefore closed boundary, the formation of which involves neither preexisting laws nor external structure. Thus, it is the type of causal attribution suitable for a perfectly self-contained system. Self-determinacy is a deep but subtle concept, owing largely to the fact that unlike either determinacy or randomness, it is a source of bona fide meaning. Where a system determines its own composition, properties and evolution independently of external laws or structures, it can determine its own meaning, and ensure by its self-configuration that its inhabitants are crucially implicated therein.

I studied the CTMU for a few years, and all I could infer about Chris from it is:

he had a traumatic childhood, and was imbued with toxic shame, hence the need to prove himself a genius (he studied for IQ / mega society tests and initially took it under the name Eric Hart, and re-entered under his real name, an unethical act of fraud).

he claims his CTMU contains and is compatible with all faiths ("up to isomorphism" - his trademark cop-out)

makes a lot of leaps of logic, and if you don't agree with his train of thought it is because you're "not intelligent enough" (he funnily enough treats intelligence like a virtue). He'd rather be called Genius than Saint

He doesn't like the idea of God handing down his Word (he believes in God but avoids "religious dogma") so instead he created his own dogma by "reconstructing God/reality" from logic (not a perfect system either, mind you). Ignoring divine word to please reason is like he Jews who, the more firmly they seem to cling to the Old Testament, the more stubbornly they reject the New Testament

he naively appropriates concepts like Logos and throws in a technical term here or there to impress, like a charlatan

he's "building" his own "mega foundation center" (think scientological church and you get the whiff of demagogue-cult that emanates from him)

he couldn't get over his emotional problems to get a real job, out of pride and pig-headedness (is it me that should change or the world? nope, the world!). academic journals do accept non-PhD work provided it is of merit and passes peer review, but Chris thinks himself above any peer.

(cont)

(cont.)
CTMU--
He hasn't explained thoroughly- without hand-waving -how language maps from mind to reality, except by haphazardly saying science sits in his model, he gets lost in where mind applies formalism to understand nature by generalising it to "language", using odd neologisms like "syndiffeonesis" (an unoriginal reversal of the Laws of Thought, in fact that's all his holism is is reverse reductionism)

He claims it yields useful results but withholds from publishing them due to fears of plagiarism, he thinks it can bring about World Peace.

He copyrighted the CTMU, a so called logical model for all thoughts and contents of reality... so he's saying he copyrighted Reality (or God, Chris isn't clear on the difference) because his CTMU is perfectly isomorphic to it...

He does a good job explaining flaws in current models, but when he gets to a self-cancellative boundary for containment he doesn't point to where this might be observed. It works as a mathematical abstraction within the language of mathematics, but he generalises all languages into one so if it exists in math it must be everywhere (is he a formalist or intuitionist?)

His CTMU is one large language game that include language... in Chris' parlance a "metalanguage game", which is either a practical joke or a work of crankery ("geniuses are never appreciated in their time!" says Chris, angrily stomping about his ranch).

The CTMU is apparently based on tautologies which work within the framework of logic and language, and somehow because reality is linguistic and physical reality is a subset of whole reality it is beyond empirical proof so the framework of logic and language is enough for him to get by in defining reality as a whole.

It makes no sense to isolate certain features from reality, combine them into a larger abstraction, and then attempt to infer reality from abstraction.
It's an impossible situation to try to retrieve existence in general out of thought in general.

He took a nap during the SAT and still got a perfect. This was back when the SAT was insanely difficult (the ceiling score corresponded to IQ 170 instead of IQ 150 as it does today). So I think it's safe to say he's well above 170 and may indeed be as smart as he claims.

so he claims

that could mean he closed his eyes for 2 minutes

also it's odd to pretend anyone knows how smarto or dumb they are (dunning-kruger anyone?). spending all of your life in midwestern ranches, new york bars and gyms and among Manuel laborers while being remotely literate is enough to inflate anyone's ego, no wonder his professors dodged him

60 Minutes or some other program had a professional psychologist give him an IQ test, and the psych was dumbstruck because he hit the ceiling on every subtest so quickly it was like he was reciting the answers pre-formed. The psych said he was the smartest man he'd ever tested by a country mile. Whether you believe in the value of IQ testing or not, you have to admit that's pretty remarkable. Chris Langan is not as other men are.

Too bad he chose to do nothing with his intellect.

his wife is a clinical neuropsychologist who administers IQ tests in a professional setting

if he cheated on the Mega Society test, who's to say he didn't study and memorise his wife's IQ test at home? someone who takes the time to talk about IQ IQ IQ with arthur jensen and other burnouts defined by single digits, and join IQ IQ IQ societies

It's also blatantly obvious when he and his wife are shilling the CTMU online, the convenience of Veeky Forums anonymity protects the image of someone merely waiting for a resistant or disinterested world to pick up on their quirky little diorama

I scored 130 on a legit IQ test, and I focused insanely hard to get that score. The idea that someone out there is 70 points smarter than me...almost 5 fucking standard deviations smarter than me...is fucking bewildering and disgusting. How is it even possible to be that smart? How?

true that's suspicious as fuck

>he has a big iq
for you

But isn't he representative of Veeky Forums in a nutshell
>be mediocre stem student
>producing nothing of value
>"but im automatically a genius just because i'm white and whites have a higher iq therefore im a genius even though i failed my last calc 3 exam!"

Don't be disgusted. Feel sorry for them instead. They are doomed to be misinterpreted and/or socially marginalized anyway.

I didn't know retards could have high IQ's

You are dangerously close to revealing that your true colors are those of a religious fanatics. You're entitled to your view, but keep them to yourself on a science board.

Kind of a waste of talent no? This guy should've worked with other scientists or at least be exposed to them

Same reason the person with the biggest dick is famous amongst that crowd

Because he casts a shadow of doubt on the belief that all classically intelligent people are non-religious.

No one has refuted his hypothesis, and most that attempt to use the personal incredulity fallacy.

I myself am an agnostic atheist, but I don't think he's "worthless" or "unworthy of attention"; he challenges the "high IQ" community by challenging personal incredulity as an argument against belief.

Studying for an IQ test completely invalidates the score. The assumption when scoring is that you have never taken an IQ test before.

I am free to express strong faith (which you confuse for fanaticism because you lack faith) wherever I please.

there are plenty of intelligent religious people, but in scientific/professional settings they leave their personal views aside, which is what you should be doing anyways. this guy is just an arrogant hack.

You're free to be called a faggot for it too, and told to keep it to yourself.

Cute. You're a big heavyweight in the debating community aren't you?

Keep your religion in your pocket. That's just good manners.

Fucking this.
In assessing his contribution to science and math, no one will care about his IQ (exhibit A: Feynman) or his religious beliefs (exhibit B: Newton), only the rigor and predictive power of his theory.
And on that score, he's a crank, plain and simple.

So is anyone itt actually gonna refute his ideas with some arguments or?

>refute his
He has no ideas; he's not even wrong.

Nah m8, pretty sure he does, refute his ideas and stop dancing around it. There's three very basic principles that form the foundation of his theory that you should be able to pick apart easily. Shit or get off the pot.

>why is he famous
he ain't. but for some reason, grumpy IQ-obsessed goblins still talk about him on the Internet.

errol morris had rick rosner and Chris langan on his show, First Person, because they're examples of people with extremely high IQ who are otherwise unremarkable people. Unfortunately, while Rick Rosner seemed to appreciate the irony, my guess is that when morris met langan he realized that he wasn't going to sit through the interviews unless he was getting his dick sucked the whole time, and he obliged. Rosner's episode i's better because he actually has some humility, and he recognizes that his IQ hasn't helped him contribute anything of value. He's actually a diagnosed OCD sufferer, and the combination of obsessive tendencies and high intelligence had led him to live an interesting, albeit tormented life. much more interesting than Langan IMO.

those html frames

This is Veeky Forums:

>be 120 IQ
>project your 120-IQ idea of success on someone with 190+ IQ (fame, fortune, etc.)
>fail to realize this is no different than a retard projecting his idea of success onto a 120-IQ person (easy access to meth, video games, burgers)

Someone with an IQ that high may find the conventional notion of success pathetic. Fame means nothing because ordinary people are basically chimps by comparison, so why would you value their opinion? Fortune means nothing because no stimulation can compete with that of books and ideas. A person that smart already has it all. They've won from birth. Our concerns are petty and primal by comparison.

>Why this shithead famous?

Chris Lanagan?

More like CHRIS LANGLEY!!!

amirite?

Holy fuck, that man's head is HUGE.

>Why is this shithead famous?
He's not. He just edits his own wikipedia page.

>Has this shit head done anything of real value?
No, he just edits his own wikipedia page.

>Why is everyone jerking him off?
They're not. He just edits his own wikipedia page.

>Because he casts a shadow of doubt on the belief that all classically intelligent people are non-religious.

You are terribly misinformed if you think that. Plenty of people who were brilliant in mathematics and sciences had all kinds of religious beliefs and superstitions. His religious beliefs aren't anything new to anybody remotely aware of the history of science and math.

>Holy fuck, that man's head is HUGE.
Have you ever seen a highly intelligent person with a small head? Thought not.