Introducing Christopher Langan, a VERY smart man who thinks WAY out of the box

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Christopher Langan tests somewhere in the 190-210 IQ range, higher than anyone else known. Far from being an academic snob, however, he grew up in a relatively poor family and held several blue collar jobs. He was speaking at 6 months old and reading at age 3. As an adult he's worked as a construction worker, a farmhand, a cowboy, and a bouncer. He currently owns a horse ranch in Missouri, and is married to a neuropsychologist. He's also a theoretical mathematician/physicist in his spare time and has published articles in The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy.

This interview with him is a bit dated but is a good watch.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Q-HXSHXUtFw

Here's a more recent interview about his metaphysical model, which seeks to unite science and spirituality using binary logic:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=a6O2sxQo_8c

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=j-788Upky2Y

Langan has a growing online fan base for clearly and compellingly articulating views that go against the established order. He's already been banned from Facebook, where he often shared his views and interacted with his fans.

Here is a same of the kinds of things he used to post on Facebook before he was banned.












In the same way we're taught to give added weight to the advice of our elders, I believe we should also give added weight to the advice of exceptionally intelligent people. Just because someone is bright doesn't mean they're always right, of course, or that they're moral people, or anything else. But his extraordinary intelligence does give Mr. Langan the ability to convey ideas in a very direct and ordered way. Even if we disagree with him, we can learn from the experience of having to refine our arguments in order to contest his.

I'm not sure where all Mr. Langan is posting online now, or if he is at all, but his old Facebook posts are making the rounds on the chans now.

[Bill Ryan]

Well, kudos to him. A bright, aware guy.

A few footnotes, though I think they're off the intended topic:

• His IQ isn't the highest known or tested. But at levels above 200, it's really hard to measure accurately. Research into past geniuses has led many to conclude that William Sidis was the most exceptional prodigy, with an IQ maybe approaching 300. See this very interesting short video. What that even means is hard to define. He was a little like the character played by Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting. He'd written books in 7 different languages by the age of 6. But he never changed the world, one bit.
• Even more important is that Intellectual Intelligence (measured by IQ), Emotional Intelligence and Spiritual Intelligence are all different, and pretty much independent of each other. In many people, one of those can be very high, while the others are normal or even a little low. It's a rare person who's high in all three.
• Anyone who's hung around Mensa members (the best-known of the various high-IQ societies) knows how extraordinarily dumb, unaware and unintelligent they can be.
• Very smart people can often be VERY smart at justifying their opinions... to themselves. They're often not at all good at listening to others, because they've already decided. long ago, that they're always right. But just because they can think quickly and are good at logic puzzles, that REALLY doesn't mean their opinions on human, societal, moral and cultural issues are 'right'.

But I do know this thread isn't about the phenomenon of genius: it's really about what this particular genius is doing. (And again, kudos. Long may he rock the boat. And I hope he can make a difference in the world, when so many very clever people can't or just don't.)

[A Voice from the Mountains]

That's a good point, Bill. Intelligence is not easy to measure in any hard-and-fast way, and everybody has different strengths. When this guy was talking about the group he started, he even says that he is trying to include a broader range of people than other groups, I suppose such as MENSA, like you mention. So I think he must also realize the limitations of these intelligence tests.

I notice that he's also not averse to using obvious hyperbole to make his points. Like when he says that he's closer to the "absolute truth" than anyone before him, how could you prove such a thing? How does he know, for example, that the NSA didn't already pick up some genius kid years ago and raise him in some classified setting, like the military is said to have done with the super soldier program? There's no way he could know something like that, so he is being a bit of a salesman too, but I can't really fault him for that. Modesty used to be a virtue, but the way our culture has eroded it's become more of an invitation for others to walk all over us. Trump uses hyperbole and exaggeration in the same way to sell his own ideas, and he openly admits as much in The Art of the Deal.

Turns out the reason he's so buff is because he used to get bullied all the time as a kid. Go figure.

[happyuk]

While I enjoy many of Langan's commentaries, including the ones that have been posted, I have a problem with his so-called CTMU theories.

Maths, physics and other technical sciences all frequently use complicated jargon and agonisingly tough-to-understand concepts and skills which can take a lifetime to digest.

In my opinion, what Langan seems to be doing is introducing completely new jargon, which is not known to real experts and which Langan crucially does not sufficiently explain. Neither does he explain why he had to introduce new jargon in the first place. I’d like to see him complete an IQ test.

Part of his modus operandi is to make it seem as though you could recognize his genius if only you understood all of the new jargon as well as he does. I have an engineering PhD, and I do understand a lot of technical theory and I will go out on a limb and say that his use of CTMU is a scam, and there are too many suckers allowing him to get away with it.

It's similar with the late Professor Stephen Hawking, who in being able to write equations about black holes and the like was clearly a clever guy. But he was also put on a pedestal in being portrayed as an expert in areas where he clearly wasn't - artificial intelligence, climate science etc etc.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by happyuk (here)
While I enjoy many of Langan's commentaries, including the ones that have been posted, I have a problem with his so-called CTMU theories.

Maths, physics and other technical sciences all frequently use complicated jargon and agonisingly tough-to-understand concepts and skills which can take a lifetime to digest.

But you've digested Langan's system this rapidly? Or maybe you've come across it previously and had time to digest it?

In my opinion, what Langan seems to be doing is introducing completely new jargon, which is not known to real experts and which Langan crucially does not sufficiently explain. Neither does he explain why he had to introduce new jargon in the first place. I’d like to see him complete an IQ test.

To be honest I've always been skeptical of people who base their arguments on authority, because it's a logical fallacy. It's become so common that "qualifications" have even become something of a modern priesthood, or way of demanding that people take what is said on faith, rather than actually using the knowledge in a methodical way. To me this is a corruption of the entire reason for learning the material in the first place. The reason for learning all that technical stuff is so opinions and informal prognostications aren't necessary. Granted, I don't know the technical details of Langan's system either, but I can consider his informal descriptions of it and reserve judgment on the things I admittedly don't understand.

The people who put together this segment interview a guy who gave him a 2-hour IQ test in front of the cameras:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1exbxoa6Vzw

The results ended up being that his IQ was too high to measure, since, as Bill pointed out, this isn't an exact science, and IQ scores are based upon relative averages. If an individual is enough of an outlier then it's hard to measure exactly where they fall compared to everyone else, which is how the numbers are calculated.

Almost all of the terms in these technical fields have been invented in the past few hundred years, because these fields didn't exist before that. They had to be created by someone. So I don't really see a problem if the guy creates new terms or ideas to express his model. There's a long tradition of that in theoretical subjects and it doesn't in itself imply anything about the accuracy of the model. If it creates a headache for others, that's unfortunate, but I don't see why it should be a reason to automatically be suspect of him. Maybe you are a materialist/atheist or something and are just objecting to the idea of trying to bridge mathematics and spirituality like this in the first place. But that would be an ideological objection and not really a professional one. For whatever it's worth, Langan has been published in a peer-reviewed journal that seems respectable enough.

Part of his modus operandi is to make it seem as though you could recognize his genius if only you understood all of the new jargon as well as he does. I have an engineering PhD, and I do understand a lot of technical theory and I will go out on a limb and say that his use of CTMU is a scam, and there are too many suckers allowing him to get away with it.

If it's a scam, how is he benefitting from it? All the attention he's been getting seems to be because of his high IQ, and not because of his arcane model. So it's not like he had to come up with it for attention, and I don't see how he is making any money from it either.

It's similar with the late Professor Stephen Hawking, who in being able to write equations about black holes and the like was clearly a clever guy. But he was also put on a pedestal in being portrayed as an expert in areas where he clearly wasn't - artificial intelligence, climate science etc etc.

They say Hawking communicated near the end of his life only by twitching a muscle in his cheek, but I'd say it's just as likely that they were just wheeling him around for photo ops and putting others' words in his mouth to help push political agendas. That's what it seemed like to me anyway. He had the same Oxbridge bunch around him at all times that is implicated in so much other academic skullduggery in various fields. They're not a wholesome bunch, despite all the prestige. They're just like Harvard and Yale, exporting "elitists" and secret societies.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by happyuk (here)
While I enjoy many of Langan's commentaries, including the ones that have been posted, I have a problem with his so-called CTMU theories.

Maths, physics and other technical sciences all frequently use complicated jargon and agonisingly tough-to-understand concepts and skills which can take a lifetime to digest.

In my opinion, what Langan seems to be doing is introducing completely new jargon, which is not known to real experts and which Langan crucially does not sufficiently explain. Neither does he explain why he had to introduce new jargon in the first place. I’d like to see him complete an IQ test.

Part of his modus operandi is to make it seem as though you could recognize his genius if only you understood all of the new jargon as well as he does. I have an engineering PhD, and I do understand a lot of technical theory and I will go out on a limb and say that his use of CTMU is a scam, and there are too many suckers allowing him to get away with it.

Yes, I'd agree. Here's a small sample from his 'Primer':

According to the Reality Principle, the universe is self contained, and according to infocognitive monism, it regresses to a realm of nil constraint (unbound telesis or UBT) from which it must refine itself. According to the Telic Principle, which states that the universe must provide itself with the means to do this, it must make and realize its own "choice to exist"; by reason of its absolute priority, this act of choice is identical to that which is chosen, i.e. the universe itself, and thus reflexive. I.e., "existence is everywhere the choice to exist." Accordingly, the universe must adopt a reflexive form in which it can "select itself" for self-defined existence, with the selection function identical to that which is selected. This means that it must take a certain general or "initial" form, the MU form, which contains all of the requisites for generating the contents of reality. Due to hology, whereby the self-contained universe has nothing but itself of which to consist, this form is self-distributed.

The mark of true high intelligence is the ability to explain complicated things in simple ways. The best example I know: Robert Pirsig's classic and brilliant Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, which among a whole bunch of other major things is a redefinition of the work of the pre-Socratic philosophers.

It's all explained in fun-to-read, page-turning, everyday language, full of metaphors, analogies and anecdotes, in the context of a motorcycle vacation across the US with his young son.

Pirsig 'only' had an IQ of 170. But his rhetorical intelligence (the ability to write and explain well) was way off the chart. Decades later, it's still the finest, most cleverly-written, most thought-provoking book I've ever read. (@ Chris Langan: try to write something like that.)

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I've tried looking up more videos/interviews he's done explaining his model informally. They can be hard to follow, but I've at least made this much sense out of them:

• In imagining the original source that generated the rest of creation (whether it's the Big Bang or God or whatever -- he doesn't care), the original source had to have contained, in some form, everything that emerged after the act of creation. So far pretty standard theorizing. Big Bang theory says the same thing.
• If there really is a single thing (energy, a "string," information, fractal holograph, whatever) underlying all of reality like the idea of a unified field theory implies, then there can be nothing outside of this source to perceive and define it independently, because everything ultimately is this same source energy. Trying to define it would just create circular definitions, because any words or ideas you could use to describe the source of creation... would also ultimately have come from that same source of creation. It's like if someone asks what a hat is and you can only tell them that it's a hat. That's not really helpful, and doesn't actually mean anything. So it's not a real definition. In the same way, the source energy can't define itself in any terms that make sense if it already makes up everything in existence. You would (at best) be using parts of itself to try to define the whole, which can never be a complete definition anyway, only some kind of rough approximation in the best case scenario.
• For that reason, the closest thing to an accurate definition of reality, is a fractal/holographic copy of the whole of reality. It's still contained within itself and leads to circular definitions, but at least the fractal piece of it is a good metaphor for the whole thing. This actually reminds of the science that the SSP supposedly developed for teleportation technology, if there is anything to those stories. Supposedly they figured out how to use a fractal map of the whole of reality to set "coordinates" for teleportation, but I think it was Andrew Basiago who said all of this stuff, and he was never elected president so I find it hard to take him seriously.
• Because reality can't be externally defined, since anything outside of reality by definition isn't real, that means that the only meaning or significance we can apply to reality has to come from within, from us.
• Since all the meaning/significance we assign to reality has to come from within reality (from us), the universe is essentially just making up its own meaning through conscious beings like us. He equates this with free will.
• Human free will is just a small, fractal-like iteration of the free will inherent in the source of all creation, due to it not being constrained by any external definitions, since nothing can exist outside of it.
• So reality is actively generating itself and we are an active part of the process.
• Since everything about us originally came from this one source, including our consciousness, when we die nothing is actually lost, and our consciousness just merges back into an experience of oneness with the rest of creation, or an underlying universal field of consciousness, or whatever. It doesn't seem like he is too specific on what this would experientially be like. It seems like he is treating consciousness as a substance like a water drop that merges back with the ocean upon individual death.

I'm getting a lot of the above out of this video:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_xlUSzZSlbU

None of these ideas sound particularly novel on their own. I don't at all understand the technical gobbledy-gook he is rendering all of this into on his website, but I suppose it's just the same ideas.

[happyuk]

"Maybe you are a materialist/atheist or something and are just objecting to the idea of trying to bridge mathematics and spirituality like this in the first place. But that would be an ideological objection and not really a professional one. "

No you mistake me. I am very much a spiritual person trapped in a materialist/intellectualist world. Pragmatic people who are effective communicators (I include yourself) arouse my admiration.

The trouble with many of us when reaching "maturity" is that rather than approach the adventure of living with excitement and zest, we reduce life to a series of verbal and intellectual games. We are drowning in a sea of words. The CTMU is just that: a pseudo-scientific explanation of life that we should not substitute for the process of living. If ever I did manage to understand the CTMU for the sake of understanding it (and I have tried!), it would be a pleasant intellectual game, or an amusing/tortured way of whiling away time, but it's actual usefulness in the daily business of living would be zilch.

In fact, much of our neurotic dissatisfaction that man has stems from the fact that , while we have swallowed many scientific terms and concepts, we have not digested them, or tested them in the real world, or actually use them in any practical sense. On the contrary, many intellectualists use such concepts as ways of perpetuating present unsatisfactory behaviour.

Any reasonable approach to science not hiding itself behind jargon must be comprehensible to the intelligent layperson, and grounded in the facts of human behaviour. If it is not, there is something basically wrong with it.

[Foxie Loxie]

Intelligence? I have read the above with great interest.

I have a dear friend who is a lifetime member of both Mensa & Intertel; a "given" then that he is highly intelligent, right?!

However, unless one makes a decision to think Outside The Box, of what good is all this intelligence? He has spent his entire life traveling the world preaching a 6,000 year Creation view, based upon, what else....the Bible!

As intelligent as he is, he fails to recognize that his entire way of thinking is based upon the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God...end of discussion!

I guess it doesn't matter what our IQ is if we refuse to integrate all available information into our world view!

Would you say that with every person a "base assumption" has been made upon which they form all further reasonings?

[Flash]

Posted by Foxie Loxie (here)
Intelligence? I have read the above with great interest.

I have a dear friend who is a lifetime member of both Mensa & Intertel; a "given" then that he is highly intelligent, right?!

However, unless one makes a decision to think Outside The Box, of what good is all this intelligence? He has spent his entire life traveling the world preaching a 6,000 year Creation view, based upon, what else....the Bible!

As intelligent as he is, he fails to recognize that his entire way of thinking is based upon the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God...end of discussion!

I guess it doesn't matter what our IQ is if we refuse to integrate all available information into our world view!

Would you say that with every person a "base assumption" has been made upon which they form all further reasonings?

Just by this comment of yours, you beat your friend up, and by a wide margin, in terms of intelligence.

I was going for a while with a friend (an ex) to Mensa dinners. I had much fun with the jokes because they were flying deep and fast, I enjoyed my time, but lots of those members were not that balanced.

Some were lacking basic critical thinking skills or had zero emotional intelligence. Others were just plainly brilliant all around and balanced with emotional intelligence as well.

As for intelligence tests, the main ones usually used to test are either based on abstract thinking skills (mathematical like) or language skills (which are culturally biais).

To really appraise overall intelligence, many more tests are needed which are not usually readily available.

One of these other tests for example has to do with using three and more dimensional faculties in space. You may be a regular folk on the regular tests, and be a genius using dimensions and spatial arrangements (which is the case of some autistic people for example).

therefore I would add to Bill's comment the following: a true sign of intelligence is the ability to find ways to express in simple terms what one's thinking is, either with word or pictures or through emotional ways to arouse understanding for example (artists)

[O Donna]

Posted by Foxie Loxie (here)
However, unless one makes a decision to think Outside The Box, of what good is all this intelligence?

So true Foxie, stagnant intelligence is dead intelligence no matter the volume of information in that box (mind). As humans we are most comfortable with what we 'know' but, to put it poetically, we are meant to reach for the star and beyond. The stagnant box can be viewed as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" Perhaps high intelligence within set parameters that never expands is a form of insanity the mind of such cannot readily accept without help from the right hemisphere.

[Orph]

Posted by O Donna (here)
The stagnant box can be viewed as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

I would have to disagree. If you do something over and over expecting a different result, ... well, heck, ....... at least you are expecting something different. Or hoping for a different result. This may be the "definition of insanity" so to speak, but not stagnation.

To me, stagnation would be doing the same thing over and over because you either don't know things can be done differently, or you are in a system where things absolutely cannot be done differently.

If a person, regardless if their IQ is 10 or 210, refuse to consider any other point of view other than their own, then yes, that "point of view" does stagnate. (That's my opinion).

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

I once knew an extremely intelligence guy, had degrees in geology and mineralogy and we had many fascinating discussions on those and related subjects over the years. But when it came to 'fringe' matters and conspiracies, notably UFOs - I remember this vividly - he became apoplectic with derision.

Of course, he had never researched the subject. He had never read a single book - because it insulted his 'intelligence'. He had a brilliant mind, but unfortunately it was incredibly closed.

Intelligence does not equate to wisdom, not at all.

[O Donna]

Posted by Orph (here)

Posted by O Donna (here)
The stagnant box can be viewed as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

I would have to disagree. If you do something over and over expecting a different result, ... well, heck, ....... at least you are expecting something different. Or hoping for a different result. This may be the "definition of insanity" so to speak, but not stagnation.

To me, stagnation would be doing the same thing over and over because you either don't know things can be done differently, or you are in a system where things absolutely cannot be done differently.

If a person, regardless if their IQ is 10 or 210, refuse to consider any other point of view other than their own, then yes, that "point of view" does stagnate. (That's my opinion).

Should the parameters remain unchanged while still expecting or hoping is an inconsequential prize. But then again, what is inconsequential may not seem so in the moment and as such your opinion stands.

Add 2 and 2 together hoping or expecting a 5 isn't going to change the outcome unless the box (calculator) is hacked/ changed.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by happyuk (here)
The trouble with many of us when reaching "maturity" is that rather than approach the adventure of living with excitement and zest, we reduce life to a series of verbal and intellectual games.

Posted by Foxie Loxie (here)
I guess it doesn't matter what our IQ is if we refuse to integrate all available information into our world view!

Posted by O Donna (here)
Perhaps high intelligence within set parameters that never expands is a form of insanity the mind of such cannot readily accept without help from the right hemisphere.

Posted by Orph (here)
If a person, regardless if their IQ is 10 or 210, refuse to consider any other point of view other than their own, then yes, that "point of view" does stagnate. (That's my opinion).

Posted by Star Mariner (here)
Intelligence does not equate to wisdom, not at all.

I have to admit, the common theme in these responses is surprising to me.

I also noticed that when Langan was on a trivia game show, introduced as one of the world's smartest men, the crowd was very quick to boo him.

It's no wonder he had to become a bodybuilder!

[Jayke]

Well, in post 5, you did highlight the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. Yet, you’re appealing to the authority of “High IQ” as a case to sell us on the intelligence of Christopher Langan.

I’m with the others in that true intelligence—which may include IQ as one facet—also has to incorporate other dimensions of intelligence. Langan (from his comments I’ve read so far) doesn’t strike me as any more intelligent as any of the other people on this forum who comment on similar topics. If anything, his high IQ keeps him stuck in what the Buddha would call ‘The Skhanda of Conception’, which you can identify in people by their attachment to conceptual and scientific terminology in their language; often making people overly verbose, abstract and difficult to comprehend.

I agree with Happy...in that true intelligence has to go beyond conceptual machinations. True intelligence is identifying where ‘the rubber meets the road’ so to speak. Where thought concepts have a direct action on physical principles to create change in the physical world. Without the pragmatic, applicable, side of intelligence; then the resulting high IQ just gets muddled up in magical, theoretical thinking. The kind that has no application in real world situations.

If you want us to listen to Langans words, don’t appeal to the authority of his IQ test scores, show us what he’s invented to help change the world. Show us how he’s helped improved the lives of millions of people. That’s where the appeals to authority begin to gain traction. The subconscious mind is ultimately convinced by ‘proof’ (of the tangible variety).

If he gets introduced as one of the worlds smartest men, but has never created anything others can grasp that back up that assertion, then people are going to question if he’s really as intelligent as people hold him up to be. Proof is in the pudding as the saying goes, and I’m left not feeling very satiated by Langans words alone. Where’s the pudding that’s been baked by this great mans mind? And what makes his pudding so much more satisfying than all the puddings other great men have baked? What are his unique ingredients? What strokes of genius has he added to the mix that others have never added before? But most importantly, how does that pudding improve humanity and help us to evolve? Those are some of the markers I personally use to gauge a persons intellect. IQ by itself doesn’t tend to mean too much imo.

[O Donna]

An interesting thing can occur in the mind when titles are bestowed on man.
It's as if they have the high ground from title alone.

If I disagree with the assertions of, for example, "the smartest man in the world", does that in contrast make me 'dumber'? How does one compete with that? lol

What would Christopher Langan's response be to such a question, I asked myself. Judging solely on the videos I imagine the response would include a degree of doublespeak. My 'dumb' response to that would be to roll my eyes and think "whatever".

Christopher Langan's ideology is of interest to listen to but of more interest as a character study.

What also came to mind while watching one of the interviews is that this man in the wrong setting could be dangerous and not in a good way.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Yes, I'd agree. Here's a small sample from his 'Primer':

According to the Reality Principle, the universe is ...

Langan is missing a key aspect of the universe.

It's layers, self-organizing layers, all the way down, and up.

In this small sample, he's describing, in too many high falutin words and concepts, just one such layer, and calling it the universe.

[whitewave]

Stanford Binet (inventor of IQ tests) never called his test an IQ test. It was a device used to gauge in what way and in what areas struggling students were experiencing difficulties. There were some groups with agendas (mainly racist) who co-opted Binet's work in order to "prove" that certain segments of society (usually black and/or poor) were not as smart and therefore not quite as human. To my understanding, there has never been found a gene for human intelligence and several studies have shown that it is not necessarily a congenital trait. Many studies have shown intelligent quotient to be affected by environment, diet, and educational opportunities.
I lost all respect for that magical number known as human IQ when seated in a high school classroom with our taped-shut tests untouched on our desks and accompanied by a #2 yellow pencil. Listening patiently to teacher instructions regarding timing of tests, penalties for various infractions while taking the test and so on we were finally asked if we understood the instructions or had any questions. Having read the same instructions on the cover of the sealed test pamphlet, I promptly raised my hand and when called on I challenged, "there are 3 spelling errors and one grammatical error on this list of printed instructions and these are the people that will be judging our intelligence?" This was not received well and I was directed to "shut up and do as told".

A man I consider to be the smartest man in the world, a personal idol of mine, and a fellow (former) Okie is Patrick Flanagan. I read his book, Pyramid Power as a teenager and, not willing to take his word on such a "woo woo" topic, I promptly set about constructing my own pyramid according to his dimensions and testing his theory for myself. The surprising (and true) results were what prompted me to investigate other "woo woo" topics with a more open mind rather than slavishly following the dogma of the hard science priesthood. Having a deaf sister, I also purchased his Neurophone device and saw my sister weep with joy when she was able to hear through such an unconventional method. Flanagan also invented a human-to-dolphin communicator with dolphin-to-English translator! How cool is that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Flanagan

I admire and respect intelligence in all its various expressions but in the words of the lovely Jewel, "in the end, only kindness matters".

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by Jayke (here)
Well, in post 5, you did highlight the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. Yet, you’re appealing to the authority of “High IQ” as a case to sell us on the intelligence of Christopher Langan.

Actually I'm not. In one of the videos above, they clearly show him taking an IQ test, and a neuropsychologist then explains the results of the test he took. Unless a lot of people are lying about test results, I'm not sure where you are able to draw confidence in insinuating that the man is not intelligent.

And just because the IQ test is not a fully comprehensive intelligence test, doesn't mean that differences in intelligence don't really exist or that the test isn't useful as some rough estimate of cognitive abilities, at least in some areas. It might not test emotional intelligence, musical intelligence, etc., but I don't think any serious person could deny that there is something that is measured by these tests, and the results aren't completely meaningless.

As far as his CTMU theory, if you pay attention, I couldn't have made any appeal to authority on that either, because I clearly stated that I don't even understand it myself.

What I see is a lot of defensiveness. I get it. If I were to have the poor taste to post some thread like "Introducing the man with the world's largest member," I would expect similar responses. I think it's sad, because what this man has is an asset, and whether you agree with his theories or not, it's a boon to the human race to have intelligent people, and not something to be hostile towards and root against by default, as if we have to protect ourselves from him.

People are probably just seeing this guy for the first time in their lives here, and there are already reactions insinuating that he may be insane, that he is close-minded, that he won't listen to anyone else, that his mental faculties are "stagnate," etc., and we don't even really know this guy. That's what frankly shocks me and brings to mind Jung's principle of projection. If we don't really know this guy, we aren't talking about him, we're projecting our own fears and desires onto an unknown quantity. I'm not threatened by him, whether he's right or wrong. I wish him well and hope he can contribute something beneficial to mankind. I'm not going to instantly start trying to put the poor guy down. Jesus.

If he gets introduced as one of the worlds smartest men, but has never created anything others can grasp that back up that assertion, then people are going to question if he’s really as intelligent as people hold him up to be.

You should call these news crews who did segments on them and explain this to them, that because he hasn't been productive enough in life, up to your standards, that all those tests he took were erroneous, and you can explain to them what geniuses are really like. I think their reaction will be about the same as mine is here.


Crabs in a bucket principle:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=RUQ2WGA8mJQ

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=BdqwSDoMOdM

When one crab is about to escape to freedom... the others hold him back!