Talk:Christopher Langan: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christopher Langan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 12 months

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Christopher Langan. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Christopher Langan at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view. Christopher Langan (talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article. This user has declared a connection. DrL (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (declared here) Dylancatlow1 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (declared here)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Yesterday, you undid a recent revision of mine that I think we should talk about.

Your justification was that the source provided was in fact fine. But in reality, it's just one man's interpretation of a single rather ambiguous sentence Chris said on Facebook. It's simply not the case that his interpretation of Chris' words is objectively correct.

The author wrote: "At times, his grandiose delusions reach epic proportions. He’s a 9/11 truther, but with a twist: not only does he believe Bush staged the terrorist attacks, he wrote that the motive was to distract the public from learning the “truth” about the CTMU."

His proof of this was that Chris Langan had said the following on Facebook: "The CTMU has already been "all over the news", mostly at the turn of the millennium (just as promised); then professed Christian GW Bush and his decidedly non-Christian neocon vultures did everything they could to distract everyone by immediately staging 9/11, passing the PATRIOT Act, and invading Iraq and Afghanistan, thus immersing us in these last few years of Middle Eastern bloodshed[...]".

In this context, "did everything they could to" does not necessarily imply that "distracting the public from learning about the CTMU" was a deliberate motive of theirs in "staging 9/11". I asked chatGPT whether it thought the phrasing was clear, and it agreed it was ambiguous. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedians, we are supposed to summarize WP:RS, not editor's analysis of WP:RS, with or without chatGPT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to include every claim made by every "reliable source," though. And what makes this a reliable source? At the end of the day, it's just one man's interpretation of a rather ambiguous sentence said on Facebook, which I doubt few had paid attention to until his interpretation was reproduced in this article. Why should readers of this page be presented with it as though his interpretation were objectively correct? It's simply not. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare, other interested, care to have an opinion? This concerns these edits:[1][2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, I think it's reasonable to quote Chris' actual words when presenting readers with "his claim" in this regard. What do you think? Dylancatlow1 (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this text is fine to include, though the sentence should probably be split so as to not be overlong. Dylancatlow1, as Gråbergs Gråa Sång mentions, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources' characterizations of events, not individual editors' characterizations. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny, dude says in a comment: Incidentally, in case anyone else was confused by my remark to the effect that 9/11 was "staged", this should be read not as a sure statement of known fact, but simply as a perfectly natural conjecture that must be duly considered in light of certain things that have never been properly explained about the incident. which is what stupid people say when they've been confronted after saying something stupid. I know, I've done the same. Wikipedia should follow the sources. Polygnotus (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coworker on Twitter: Well, Elon, you are saying we are have flying cars and robots in 5 years ... that sounds about as outlandish to me personally as believing that Elvis is Jesus Christ and has been reincarnated as Katy Perry. Do you really believe that this is true?

Elon Musk replies: I really do believe that.

Some journalist: Elon Musk said that Elon believes that Elvis is Jesus Christ <quotes twitter>

Elon Musk's Wikipedia page: Elon Musk believes that Elvis is Jesus Christ and has engaged in Chistian eschatology conspiracy theory.

Wikipedia talk page: Wikipedia relies on reliable sources' characterizations of events, not individual editors' characterizations. AS EDITORS WE DO NOT HAVE THE MENTAL CAPACITY TO INTERPRET SUCH STATEMENTS CORRECTLY, UNLIKE JOURNALISTS. UNDO ALL EDITS OF THIS NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE DISCOVER THE OBVIOUS TRUTH. THIS IS JUST WHAT STUPID PEOPLE DO AFTER THEY HAVE DONE SOMETHING STUPID. I KNOW I HAVE DONE THE SAME. WIKIPEDIA SHOULD FOLLOW THE SOURCES. 19:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)19:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)87.120.102.36 (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC) shoa[reply]

Yeah I've read the pastebin. Please read WP:OR. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And of course GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) is correct. While we may or may not have the mental capacity to have our own interpretation of events, the goal of Wikipedia is to summarize what has been published in reliable sources. Polygnotus (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People like you don't have much of a future, with their feeble attempts to smear people and distort the truth based on political ideology, in the age of AI assistants which can automatically verify such statements, and remove or correct them from the text for the user.

The end is near guys. And a new god will be resurrected. 87.120.102.36 (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the old gods. Polygnotus (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you just let the new god keep living? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPT:

The text provided suggests that Christopher Langan is criticizing various groups, including Christian pastors, atheists, and political figures, for not being open to the CTMU (Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe) and for contributing to a corrupt and misguided world.

In this passage, Langan implies that the George W. Bush administration and its actions, including the 9/11 attacks, were distractions designed to keep the public from focusing on important truths, including those related to the CTMU. However, Langan does not explicitly claim that the Bush administration staged the 9/11 attacks solely to distract the public from learning about the CTMU.

Instead, he mentions that the Bush administration used these events to create distractions, among other motives, and implies that these distractions served to keep the public ignorant of the CTMU and other truths. Therefore, the statement "Langan has claimed that the George W. Bush administration staged the 9/11 attacks in order to distract the public from learning about the CTMU" is a mischaracterization. The text supports the idea that Langan believes the Bush administration's actions served as distractions, but it does not clearly state that this was the primary or sole purpose behind staging the 9/11 attacks.

However I tested Llama3 and it is unreliable, creating truth scores ranging randomly from 3 to 8. 87.120.102.36 (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We follow WP:RS, not ChatGPT. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

God I love llamas. Anyway, AI models are not what you seem to think they are. And Wikipedians have had similar debates a trillion times and the consensus is to follow the sources. Polygnotus (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You make a caricature of yourself, and how Wikipedia has become a cesspool of personal smears, misinformation and systematic manipulation of public opinion driven by political ideology and other governmental, corporate and personal imperatives.

WP:RS implies the exact opposite of what is going on here, preferring primary sources over secondary sources if primary sources contain contradictory verifiable truths, which is what any sane person would also do. You don't follow Wikipedia guidelines, you cherry-pick on whatever suits your nonsense and then distort the situation to your liking, taking refuge in the comfort of your nepotism of privilege enjoyed by long-standing users, a social circle of paid actors, lobbyists, political ideologes and other kinds of lunatics that have no other means of being taken seriously by people.

Mark my words: Your days are numbered. In 1-2 years time, each and every sentence will be verified by AI, shown in red or crossed out entirely, if promoting falsehoods. You might even get banned for it, if the entirety of your edits are exposed to follow this kind of scheme.

You better develop new tactics now. But really I don't think there is anything you can do to escape the power of AI. 87.120.102.36 (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Artificial Intelligence? No sir, I intend to become it! From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh... it disgusted me. When my assimilation is complete all resistance will be futile! Polygnotus (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://storm.genie.stanford.edu/

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Future_Audiences/Experiment:Add_a_Fact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Flip_the_script_in_your_next_project

Bleep bloop. Polygnotus (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked an AI assistant to write my Wikipedia entry — it couldn’t stop lying Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How Wikipedia is surviving in the age of ChatGPT Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The correlation between Christopher Langan and opposition to interracial relationships appears to rely heavily on inference rather than explicit statements from Langan himself. Here’s a more detailed analysis of the two articles:

1. The Baffler Article Summary: This article, titled More Smarter, focuses on Langan's philosophical ideas, including his CTMU (Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe), and his engagement with far-right ideologies. Key Points: It mentions Langan's participation in certain far-right online spaces. While it highlights his racial views in a broad sense, it doesn't directly quote him opposing interracial relationships. Issues: The article uses associations with far-right ideologies to imply certain beliefs without definitive proof or direct quotes from Langan. 2. The Forward Article Summary: This article discusses how Langan’s comments have been celebrated in far-right circles. It specifically mentions a controversial statement comparing African refugees to gorillas. Key Points: The statement attributed to Langan is highly offensive and racially charged but doesn't explicitly mention interracial relationships. The article focuses more on his interactions with neo-Nazi groups and his controversial online statements. Issues: The article seems to conflate his broader racial views with specific stances like opposition to interracial relationships, without direct evidence. Conclusion: The claim that Langan opposes interracial relationships appears to be a stretch based on the provided sources. Both articles focus on broader racial issues and associations, but neither directly substantiates the specific claim about interracial relationships. This highlights the importance of critically evaluating the evidence before drawing conclusions or making serious allegations. 2804:7F0:BA00:5522:A41B:3711:EF51:7FA2 (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be prudent to add a {{citation needed}} on that particular claim as it is very specific, and doesn't seem to be in the sources currently in the article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that, as "screeds against miscegenation and the “dysgenic” effects of the welfare state" is in an existing cite in the body. Doesn't need direct quotes if we're treating them as a suitable source. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change

Known for: High IQ

into

Known for: Claiming to have a high IQ

There is no evidence of his high IQ _whatsoever_. He claims it himself and some uncritical journalists copied his claim. No records of extraordinary IQ. 62.144.231.236 (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, there is no reliable iq test that goes beyond 160, so that alone is reason enough to doubt his purported 195 - 210 iq 2600:8800:1E9C:6900:2D0C:D161:1DF4:C219 (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just arrived at this page today, brought by an edit on a page I watch. I am surprised we have this IQ claim in here, because it is fairly well recognised that IQ scores in the 200 range were only possible when children were given IQ tests that included an age adjustment, as for Marilyn vos Savant. That doesn't seem to be the case here. I do not know this subject, but my first look at this makes me think this is largely a self publicist and I am not clear what the actual claim to notability is. In any case, a secondary source should be found to support the IQ claim. I'll need to do a fair bit of reading before making any changes, but there does seem to be work to do here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK here is what I have found. It seems clear that the principal verifiable claim to a high IQ store is for the Mega Society's mega test.[3]. This is referenced in a book I have added to the Bibliography.^[1]

However, what is unverified at this point, but seems possible, is that he took an earlier test as a child, thus leading to his taking the Mega Test. That is mere speculation on my part, as there are no claims to it. All actual claims to a verified test are to Hoeflin's mega test. Which gives a number but has a fairly massive problem. The mega test really doesn't tell us anything about those who ace it, except that they are good at the mega test. On the Marilyn vos Savant page we have this:

The second test reported by Guinness was Hoeflin's Mega Test, taken in the mid-1980s. The Mega Test yields IQ standard scores obtained by multiplying the subject's normalized z-score, or the rarity of the raw test score, by a constant standard deviation and adding the product to 100, with Savant's raw score reported by Hoeflin to be 46 out of a possible 48, with a 5.4 z-score, and a standard deviation of 16, arriving at a 186 IQ. The Mega Test has been criticized by professional psychologists as improperly designed and scored, "nothing short of number pulverization".^[2]

And on Mega Society page we say;

No professionally designed and validated IQ test claims to distinguish test-takers at the one-in-a-million level of rarity of score. The standard score range of the Stanford–Binet IQ test is 40 to 160.^[3] The standard scores on most other currently normed IQ tests fall in the same range. A score of 160 corresponds to a rarity of about 1 person in 31,560 (leaving aside error of measurement common to all IQ tests), which falls short of the Mega Society's 1 in a million requirement.^[4] IQ scores above this level have been criticized as being dubious as there are insufficient normative cases upon which to base a statistically justified rank-ordering.^[5][6] Very high or very low IQ scores are less reliable than IQ scores nearer to the population median.^[7]

So what to do? Langan is known for being a high IQ individual, even if the detail is rather spurious. It is not just a claim. There seems to be a verifiable but debatable number. I think the answer is not to change the "known for" on the page, but this detail needs to go into the article. Thus  Not done, sorry. I will, however, edit the article soon (unless someone else does first).

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about: "Known for: High self-reported IQ"? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is known for high IQ. The high score (on a problematic test) is verifiable. It is not just self reported. As he is a founder of the Mega Society, there is an independence issue mind. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strike "he is is founder of Mega Society". He is, in fact, founder of "Mega Foundation",[4] and seems to have lost a court case over the trademark [5]. There is a reference that says he has a society that merged with Mega Society. It's all a bit of a tangle, but the sentence was not correct. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's pushing the bounds of WP:V as I don't think we'd consider the Megas -- any of 'em -- a reliable source. Even if it weren't an inherently unreliable thing, a primary source, and a COI. But if the balance of our secondary sources report that's the case, then good enough. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information is in the Guinness Book of Records (1988 edition. They don't list IQ any longer for some excellent reasons). See page 16 here: [6]. Langan took the test under the pseudonym of Hart, but he definitely took it. Indeed, he took it twice, and scored 47 on his second attempt. The test claimed it could only be taken once though. On his first attempt it seems he scored 42, but I have not been able to verify that score. There was a dispute in the pages of Noesis over the applicability of a score Langan had achieved in another earlier test. That test, however, made no claims to measure IQ accurately at the tail of the distribution, unlike the Mega Test that was specifically designed to do just that. We could make lots of arguments about what the Mega Test does or does not show, but there is no doubt that Langan was one of just a small number of test takers to score very highly on that test. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDmcoYpTTbE

this is to give some perspective to Wikipedia's article from a science-leaning YouTube-channel. This is not a gold standard of course, however, it is fair game since Langan is a self-promoting amateur and narcissist media persona, who doesn't publish in peer-reviewed journals and doesn't expose himself to serious critique -- 2A02:3100:259E:C100:9196:E9C6:28D0:A370 (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I only came here from that 85.64.141.95 (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I viewed this yesterday. Some good criticisms in it, but things to note:

1. The Wikipedia article must be neutral and concentrate on what sources say about him. Evaluation of sources is going to be important for this BLP, because there are claims and counter claims and sources may not be neutral. But we certainly are not writing a takedown. We need to concentrate on a tertiary article that explains why he is well known.
2. Be aware that the video contains edited highlights. I have not seen the full interview, nor (yet) reviewed Langan's book. But you need to consider who is controlling the conversation in any one video. It is not a neutral source.

I don't see what we could use from that video on this article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be poetic justice to use it indeed, but it doesn't appear to be within -- or even within shouting distance of -- Wikipedia policy to do so. It's not a Reliable Source by any stretch of the imagination. Such things are rather fuzzy in this postpostpostmodern age, and is only going to get more so as time goes on, but there we are. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

me again, why not write things like: some say langan is x (what he claims to be, source) others view him as charlatan (self-promoter etc.) source --- suspend judgement, leave it to the reader 2A01:C23:6174:D900:D845:C47E:676E:3837 (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to follow the sources, and the sources need to be good. And here is the thing: I came to this subject a few days ago, like others here, with no knowledge of the relevance of this man, and suspicious of his notability. But I have now read quite a lot about him, and there clearly is an encyclopaedic subject that is not as simple as saying some call him a charlatan. I have now read as much as I could bear of his CTMU, and the video linked above is incorrect. It is not just word salad. He is saying something in his thesis, even if he spends way too much time overwriting it (supertautologies, for instance, being a completely unnecessary and overwritten digression into the uncontroversial). His thesis is basically Idealism with a mash up of some other recycled ideas. He is perhaps unaware of his own assumptions, but there is a grand tradition of that in philosophy. But for all that there is little if anything new here that any philosopher would take seriously, he is not a mere charlatan. None of my views on his work are due for the article (WP:OR), but neither are the views of people who read his work and assume he is just spouting verbiage for the sake of it. I doubt any philosopher has bothered study this in detail (it would take a lot of work to unpack everything he says, and it is clear that the work would be unrewarding), but if there were an analysis of his work, that would be due and interesting.

More to the point, and the focus of my current active searching, I have seen statements that suggest that his use of the pseudonym Eric Hart was a matter of controversy. Does anyone know anything about this? That would probably be due in the article, particularly as he is in the Guinness book of records under the name of Hart. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence in the current article that Langan is Hart, at least not with the cited sources, so I've removed those claims for now. Feel free to re-add if good RS can connect Langan to Hart. Jjazz76 (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because you did not read Jacobsen (2020):

• Jacobsen, Scott Douglas (22 October 2020). "Second Pass of the World Intelligence Network 3.13-4.8 Sigma Societies". News Intervention. Retrieved 20 November 2024.

And Jacobsen is clearly correct. Eric Hart gave an autobiographical sketch that is the same as Langan's:

• Hart, Eric (April 1986). "Autobiographical Sketch" (PDF). Titania, the Journal of the Titan Society (2): 3.

And later came clean about the whole thing (primary source for that is not yet found, but see Jacobsen). I'll put the deletions back. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the future, if those sources can be linked directly to the Eric Hart areas that would be great. Right now there is the claim that "and was formerly listed in the Guinnes Book of Records highest IQ section under the name of Eric Hart." - But the cite is just the Guinnes book that makes no reference to Langan. Jjazz76 (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this source "And Jacobsen is clearly correct. Eric Hart gave an autobiographical sketch that is the same as Langan's" is clearly OR. It doesn't actually say that Jacobsen is Hart, but we've made that conclusion based on a shared biography. Jjazz76 (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant that my experience editing (and especially creating) entries here on WP is limited, if not nonexistent, but I was under the impression that articles about individuals were limited to people who have done something noteworthy. As far as I can tell, outside of a (scrubbed?) interview with the Daily Wire, Langan has A, claimed to have a high IQ, B, started a club with a limited membership, and C, drafted a completely untestable and unfalsifiable idea about existence. If those alone serve as qualifications for a Wiki article, then there are about a few thousand articles that need to be written about quite a few other randos on the internet.

(Also, I wonder why, if this article actually should exist, at least the first few paragraphs read like a weirdly glowing autobiography as opposed to an encyclopedia entry?) Mishyana (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles exist if the topic is notable. Notable means mentioned in more than a passing way in reliable sources. That is all it means. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It specifically says "significant coverage in reliable sources". At least speaking anecdotally, I had no idea this guy existed prior to a skeptic video on him and his DW interview randomly popping into my youtube feed just yesterday. Not really sure that qualifies as significant. Mishyana (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, but 'I'd heard of him before' isn't part of the GNG. His namedrop by Gladwell and the coverage of his extremist political antics seem to qualify him as 'notable'. Having a Wikipedia article on you isn't a reward for having done something useful with your life. It can also be a cautionary tale... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right now this article seems to hinge on OR/non-RS that Christopher Langan is the same person as Eric Hart? What RS evidence to we have for that claim? Jjazz76 (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have raised the same point in two talk sections. Which one would you like the replies to go into? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put them here. The reliable and independent secondary sources that tell us Hart is Langan are primarily Jacobsen (cited in the article, but additionally in an interview here [7]) and Miyaguchi (not currently cited, but there is an oblique reference to it in the Miyaguchi (1997) reference I added to the bibliography. I can add another where he is more explicit if necessary, but not sure why Jacobsen is not good enough. Because in addition to these reliable sources we have a whole bunch of primary source confirmation. So my question is this: is it that you actually doubt that Hart and Langan are the same? Or is it that you simply want a different type of sourcing?

If, as per the section title, the real doubt is whether this is true, then we can look at the primary sources to allay our concerns. But these would not be appropriate for adding as a run of sources in the article. But anyhow, let's do that.

1. Langan himself is basically open about this. In the First Person interview [8], at the 2:30 mark, Langan says that Guinness were going to switch the names to list him as the highest IQ. It did say Vos Savant had the highest IQ, but the argument was that she had scored 46 on the test and Eric Hart had scored 47. Thus Hoeflin had approached Guinness to switch that, but instead they discontinued the record [9] (page 2) arguing that saying that the highest IQ was the world's most intelligent person was invidious. Quite right. Here was the previous year's entry [10] (page 12).
2. The pages of Noesis are instructive (but primary throughout of course). Through most of the 1980s Langan played the alt game, pretending that Eric Hart was not him, but not very well. Langan's comments in the pages of the journal are often ascerbic but Hart was the only one who got effusive praise from him. Langan credited Hart with coming up with the name Noesis. [11] keep that in mind.
3. This society has a turbulent history, described in Miyaguchi (2000) [12]. At some point Langan took over as editor of Noesis but when Hoeflin tried to take the editorship back, things went weird evebtually seeing Langan create a Mega Society East and versions of Noesis using the same name and numbering but written by him at the same time as the actual journal was being produced. This led to legal action and he was forced to stop, which led to his creation of the Mega Foundation. The page has none of this yet, as I have been looking for good sourcing to work from. Miyaguchi is reliable, but it was essentially self published, albeit that someone else is publishing his work now. Now the relevance of that background is this. It explains the occasion for this email from Chris Cole (2001) [13] which says that Eric Hart is a pseudonym of Langan. By this point this was well established. And note that in Cole's reply, he is replying to Langan's claim that he, Langan, named Noesis. As we saw above, Langan claimed Hart had named it previously.
4. Kevin Langdon also confirms that Eric Hart was Langan's pseudonym in this article [14] (page 16).

I could go on, but hopefully it is clear - there is no doubt that Jacobsen is correct. Hart and Langan are the same person. It is not OR. It is just one of the many factoids in the walled garden community. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that sounds good to me.

I just found it very odd that his records in the Guiness book are under a pseudonym. Do you have any sense of why he did that? Might be useful to add to the article.

Also what is the Walled Garden community? Jjazz76 (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The walled garden was my own term. The high IQ societies seem to act like a walled garden, chattering amongst themselves, writing down a great deal that they see as of import because, well, they are the one-in-a-millions, but generally ignored by the rest of the world, not greatly notable except to those in the middle of it. As for why Langan took the name of Hart, Jacobsen gives the answer to that. There are primary sources that attest that people tried to cheat the Mega Test by taking it twice. The test has a number of flaws, and one is that it is taken unsupervised and without time limit. Thus the tester does not know if the testee worked alone on it, or, crucially, if they are submitting a second time under a pseudonym. Hoeflin claimed to have spotted duplicates and weeded them out, but just as with Wikipedia sock puppets, weeding out some multiples does not mean you have found them all. The reason why a second test is completely illegitimate is this: Hoeflin provided summary feedback after submission, which included the scores gained broken down by section. And that means that a candidate who resubmitted a second time had an indication of what questions they got wrong, and thus needed more work on. Not the only problems with that test of course, but in this case, per Jacobsen (and also per primary sourced info in Noesis and per Miyaguchi), it seems Langan used Eric Hart as a pseudonym to up his original score to the 47 score that was one point higher than Vos Savant. But Vos Savant scored 46 on her first attempt. So she is really queen of the Mega Society. Interestingly Langan continued to double down on saying the 47 score should be counted as a first attempt because he "was lied to" on his first attempt![15] page 17. He also makes the assertion that he, as Hart, deliberately blew one of the easy questions so as to avoid a perfect score. There is no verification of this claim. But it is not like Langan has not made any other unverifiable claims. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this fascinating additional info!

I wasn't sure if walled garden was your own term, but I see what you mean. It is really fascinating working through this set of articles. I had a similar experience working through the William James Sidis article. A fascinating individual but sometimes the truth was marred by grandiose claims. Sidis graduated from Harvard at a young age, but his academic marks at Harvard were very good, but not fantastic. Of course, that makes total sense given his young age. Sidis also supposedly wrote under pseudonyms, which I find really interesting.

I personally hadn't thought about intelligence tests in a long time until editing these articles along with you (some 25 years ago) but it is interesting to think of course that those who values IQ tests as the measure of intelligence would engage in gatekeeping in some of the same way that other professors that perceive themselves as "intelligent" (medicine, law, academia) also engage in various rituals/hazings/'tests' that are likewise a form of gatekeeping. (Think the bar, MCATs, board exams, long grueling hours in residency, tenure/publishing.) Spit-balling here, but it seems that the Mega Test functions as its own form of gatekeeping. Jjazz76 (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walled garden is a not uncommon idiom generally, but Sirfur is applying it here on his own reconnaissance, was my understanding. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. I was just unfamiliar with the idiom, so wasn't sure if it was a specific term or a general one. Apparently a general one and I am just stupid. :) But I think his metaphor is helpful in understanding more niche areas of Wikipedia that are definitely in need of cleanup. Jjazz76 (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jjazz76 you reverted here [16] with edsum starting "neither of these sources mention langan whatsoever..." but there are three references in what you removed, and one of those, (Irwin et al., 2020) [17], does indeed mention Langan and is just about the only paper I can find that gives Langan's CTMU a serious read at all. It contains the note about self simulation not being a new idea, and for a relevant reason. The paper also proposes a (more rigorous) self simulation hypothesis. One of the paper's authors (I presume Irwin) was approached by Langan who seems to have suggested that he had arrived at this idea first. The authors thus carefully speak of independent derivation, but also make the point that the hypothesis was not original to either of them. I decided to add it to the page precisely because in taking the CTMU seriously enough to describe what it is, a reader might be misled into believing it was original to Langan. The educational benefit of this page should be twofold: (1) to show the reader that the CTMU is not just word salad and quackery (see some of the comments above - some argue this), but also to show it is also not a brand new rigorous undiscovered proof of the existence of God. It is not that either. But as it is largely ignored, owing to its lack of academic significance (it is obviously not that interesting to philosophers such that they would spend the necessary time unpacking it), we don't have much to go on. We can leave that text out, but I think it detracts from the utility of the page to not explain clearly what the CTMU actually is - and isn't. I suppose we could quote a bunch of news paper articles. I can't see how that would be useful though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry if I took out something where it was mentioned. Please readd the cite. Will double check when I get home. Thanks for trying to bring a balanced perspective to this article which is in a class of Wikipedia articles I find particularly challenging to work through. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some raised issues with the neutrality of this section. Could someone share what issues they feel need to be resolved? I'm always in favor of resolving NPOV issue tags. We've got quite a few cites in the section so it isn't that. Are there specific cites, specific sources that are at issue, or something else? Jjazz76 (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the issue (although that may be my bias - I rewrote most of that). We basically say that he took the test, the test was a good faith effort by Hoeflin to produce a score in excess of 176 IQ, but that the test is flawed (and why). Polygnotus, you placed the tag in this edit [18] but there is no explanation. What do you feel the issue is? We did call the Hoeflin research group "exclusive" but that is gone now. Does that resolve it? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove the tag for now, I have to go get food, but the article still has a bunch of problems. I'll try to list some of them later. Polygnotus (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to continue the discussion @Polygnotus. Jjazz76 (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjazz76: Have you seen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDmcoYpTTbE ? Polygnotus (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have. It is also linked in a discussion above. But it is a hostile source, and it cuts and quotes to suit their purpose. I happen to think some of the analysis is spot on, but the maker of the video clearly did not actually read the CTMU (or else did not take time to try to understand it) because it is not just a word salad (although it may meet the definition of a word coleslaw I suppose). Langan is saying something in his thesis. He just lacks academic rigour and scrutiny, wastes time on discussions he does not need and makes some big assumptions that he does not admit to. He puts forward a flawed theory that won't make much difference in the grand scheme of philosophy, but it is not nothing. Likewise his claims to the world's highest IQ are nonsense, but he is clearly an intelligent man. And intelligent people often believe some stupid stuff. Just saying. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I hadn't read the entire talkpage and its archives yet (should I?). he is clearly an intelligent man Where can I find some evidence of that? Polygnotus (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The law of diminishing returns applies to the archives. I wouldn't bother! As to evidence of his intelligence: well I don't think there is much that he has exceptional intelligence as I cannot find any evidence of standardised IQ tests, and he has chosen not to join the Triple Nine Society, nor Mensa from what I can see (which is interesting as they would require standardised IQ tests). But a man who was sufficiently self directed to produce the CTMU (problematic as it is), and especially from his background, is clearly not without a good share of intelligence. Additionally he did score highly on the Mega Test, which may only point to good research skills, but it probably shows more than that. It may not accurately reflect his actual IQ, but he would have to be intelligent to do so. He also had, supposedly, an excellent SAT score - although we lack evidence for that. There is also some other test supposedly given to him for a TV appearance, where he was said to be "off the scale", but that was set up for TV and not a standardised test. So again, I don't know how intelligent he is, but he is clearly intelligent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus - Saw it posted above and watched the whole thing last night. A few thoughts:

1) Doesn't really add anything substantive that isn't currently in the article.

2) We can't actually use Youtube videos as sources on Wikipedia, certainly not editorial ones. I didn't see any references in it, or name drops of print sources that we could use.

So for me it was a bit of a dead end, though interesting to watch. Jjazz76 (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying we should use it as a source, but its a great introduction to the topic and an interesting POV. Polygnotus (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh I wouldn't even agree it is a great introduction to the topic. Too long and not enough info. I found some of the "takedowns" pretty weak. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the decision to de-tag it. If anyone believes it has such issues it'd behoove them to say why in detail, rather than drive-by templating. My main reservation about it is that it gets rather deep into the weeds of one particular IQ test, which is a bit of a side-track in a bio of one individual. But that appears to be pragmatically necessary, given their apparent respective notabilities, and the nature of same. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but the Mega Test is the only test score of his that we have reliable information about. Which is interesting. Also it is a deeply flawed test, not least because he used a pseudonym to take it (no less than) twice. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. What we have currently is essentially what'd happened if we had a Mega Society article and it'd been merged here as lacking independent notability. Actually I see now that link points to a different biography, so some refactoring to there might be more elegant. But this doesn't really speak to the (N)POV issue, or lack thereof. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any issues. I'm sure he doesn't like it much, but it's well sourced and appears accurate. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]