Some of the things he says could come strtaight out of a buddhists mouth, like how he talks about everyone really being one, that we are all part of a divinity, and that we are all prisoners in bodys waiting for the day when we can look out through the worldview window.Originally Posted by niffweed17
Unless V.I. and body types is complete bullshit, some types can be ruled out as impossible, for example EII and LII, but maybe LSI is not totally impossible.
Based on the things he says in those three parts of the interview, how he says them, and also what kind of attitude towards life he is expressing, he seems to havein his ego block.
His temperament is somewhat more difficult to determine, but based on the things I have mentioned so far, he does not seem to be an LIE and probably not an LSE either. Overall his most likely temperament seems to be IP.
So, trying to make all the these pieces fit together, I would say that the two most likely types are SLI and ILI.
Ok so far we have
most votes for ENTj and ESTj
some votes for ISTp, INTp, ISTj, ESTp, ENTp, ENFj
Some consensus is building around Te-types so why don't we fight about his
temperament...
EJ or IP and why?
(if you think rather IJ or EP then why they are better than EJ or IP?)
I checked the first two videos again and I think he is actually rather passive observer from what he says. He portrays a rather extroverted image during the interview but the things he talks about he is always in a passive victim role just observing what happens etc. He also says he only momentarily concentrates on outside world and he has his own imaginary world inside his head where he spends most of his time. He is also very critical and has a naturally negative view of the world (ENTj are more enterprising and positive).
So...I think I will change from ENTj -> INTp because of his passive victim nature and general negativity. I think ISTps in his situation would be more into substance abuse and sensory pleasures but his drug seems to be his own imaginationwhich suggests Ni-dominant. He could well be a critic and observer i.e. INTp. Oh and he says things like "academy is a cold and heartless institution" etc which suggests he is a victim and appreciates Fi. Fi hidden agenda is more likely than Se hidden agenda as he is not trying to really achieve anything but I get the sense that he is trying to be ethical. He seems so happy and content to just live inside his head.
????
It goes without saying the man is entp, no doubt in my mind.
Lol. I think he has had some hard experiences in his life and when going gets too rough he always seems to escape into his imaginary world or goes to library and let's the books do the healing (which sounds INTp like). ISTp might escape into a bottle of vodka or perhaps doing something physical (sports, eating, ...) or something like that instead. Perhaps the Ni vs Si difference manifests this way (just a hunch which might be wrong). When they are trying to cope with difficulties Ni is morelikely to escape inside their head while Si is more likely to "abuse" the sensory pleasures.????
Actually, he has written a paper about his Cognitive-Theoretical Model of the Universe (CTMU):Anyway, I always thought that it's sad when people with high IQ don't end up in jobs that make full use of their aptitude and intelligence. What a phenomenal waste.It is society's loss without their valuable contributions.
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
It's quite interesting, and quite difficult.
Some lighter reading: http://www.megasociety.org/noesis/62.htm
Regarding his type, half the time he spends talking about Se topics: his father's abuse, breaking up bar fights, etc. Surely Aristocratic; he continually emphasizes that he does not believe he is better than anybody else. The elitism alone is good evidence for Beta. There was some Ni in there (the "we are all one" stuff), but it was dwarfed by the Se. He did not develop the idea at all. (Even his CTMU paper is just an outline, unfortunately.) ISTj, possibly ESTp, although just by temperament ISTj seems more likely. Rick, I'd like to see some arguments for ESTp over ISTj, if you don't mind.
Langan has been criticized by (former) fellow high-IQ society members for being a jerk. He created a kind of political power struggle within the Mega Society, using its name without permission, and eventually broke from it to form his own group, which revolves around his philosophy (i.e. CTMU).
See
http://www.megasociety.org/noesis/156/la_to_cl.html
http://www.megasociety.org/noesis/154/caution2.html
http://www.megasociety.org/noesis/151/cease&de.html
http://www.megasociety.org/noesis/153/brandx.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Michael_Langan
http://www.megasociety.org/noesis/72.htm
McNew's response is also rather telling, I think:
I must not be Extraverted Intuitive then, because the assumptions he makes I will never ever make in my life and for the most part I find them very anti whatever I am.
Last edited by Exodus; 07-31-2023 at 10:45 PM.
I'm following the discussion with interest, but I've promised to hold off on my version and arguments till a week has passedRick, I'd like to see some arguments ....
I do not quite think the man is as smart as he thinks he is ... atleast he is not very open minded. I have just read the link here:
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
And he makes some claims that are proven to be illigitimate and then builds a model around them. Like his statement about darwin and "creation by design" ... it is actually taught in American Universities now that darwin was incorrect in his reasoning of evolution by failing to understand the patterns of genetics.
And I have seen no evidence other than that he is promoting some sort of weird systemized and westernized form of Buddhists/Hindu philosophy that he thinks that would improve the well-being of the world if he can make people abide by it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christo...esign_movement
Intelligent design movement
Langan and his wife Dr. Gina Langan (nee LoSasso) are both fellows of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a think tank of the intelligent design movement.[14] The ISCID's journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design published a paper in 2002 in which Langan explained his "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe".[15] Later that year, Langan presented a lecture on Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe and intelligent design[16] at the ISCID's Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[17] In 2004, Langan contributed a chapter to the book Uncommon Dissent, a collection of essays by fellow intelligent design proponents and ISCID fellows edited by William Dembski.[18] In the chapter, Langan offers his opinion of both intelligent design and the modern evolutionary synthesis and proposes a synthesis by means of his idea, the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" (CTMU).
Asked about creationism, Langan has said:
Regarding evolution and creationism, the linkage is simple: since Biblical accounts of the genesis of our world and species are true but metaphorical, our task is to correctly decipher the metaphor in light of scientific evidence also given to us by God. Hence, the CTMU. [19]
I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.[20]
Langan has said he does not belong to any religious denomination, explaining that he "can't afford to let [his purportedly] logical approach to theology be prejudiced by religious dogma."[20] He calls himself "a respecter of all faiths, among peoples everywhere."[20]
Case Closed ... he is non-dualist and the man used his intelligence to unwittingly become a buddhist!
What do you mean by those terms? Are these negative terms to you?
I am completely familiar with the sort of philosophy he is presenting and they are not at all new ideas. Quite contrarily he is only repeating the same secular philosophy found and formed in Europe during the time ofWhat do you mean by those terms? Are these negative terms to you?
the Social Question [began about 1813 when feudalism was broken up and over-population problems began]. It was during this time that many darwinistic principles were added to theological principles and this eventually followed into a "God is dead" movement lead by some Existentialists, such as nietzsche. Of course, this lead to a further "demythologizing of scripture" and more usages of scientific reasoning to explain creation. Ironically, this became the basis of much of the biblical criticism standard that is taught to theologians today even though they may not hold these same ideas and beliefs, but the opportunity is there if it is ever desired.
Nondualism is a fancy term to describe the beliefs of someone who believes in a universal force or wholeness that all people are connected to [yet are unaware of the connection] and that individuality on this basis, while it is a perception of reality, is a complete illusion and that all religions in the world, including things that could derive from scientific measures, have complete truth and do explain the phenomenon that all people have "self-determination" and strive to become part of the whole.
For example, it is absolutly expected for any buddhist, who is essentially nondualist, to make a claim such as that evolution has validity and that the genesis creation story also explains a type of evolution. The fact that he claims he does not want to belong to any religion is also very typical of non-dualist philosophy, because often times many buddhist, especially western buddhist, will disavow the authority of religious teachers and shun origanized religion, as they accept that those teachers do not always offer the correct means to find enlightenment and might even hold them back, despite the fact that religions themselves all strive for the same sort of "self-determination" that Langan always seems to be chanting about.
And also, I should add something to what you said and that is that "only extreemly liberal Christians would agree with Langan and his philosophical approach." There are plenty of conservative Christians that would find the idea that philosophy and "intelligent design" can be described in such a way completely atrocious.
And no, I do not think they are negitive terms ... I actually believe in nondualist principles myself and for the most part I have a deep despisal of organized religion, even though I will attend church and associate with other Christians at an organized church, plus I consider them my family. I just think that there is no point telling people that there is a blind leading the blind thing going on when it is pretty obvious and that they can make those sort of decisions for themselves.
What gives me a headache though is that Langan is trying to systemize the whole thing into this neat little complex package and then tries to tell the world it is the way to enlightenment. Well, I do not really agree with everything he says enough anyways [I think he goes off on tangents over things he does not quite know much about] and also that he thinks he has a duty to force everyone to follow his concepts in order for their to be world peace, which seems pretty bigoted to me. I am not surprised that he got kicked out of a high-IQ organization for being a total Jackass.
That is my take on it ...
http://web.archive.org/web/200008160...0_iq_chat.html
BUDDHIST/HINDU PHILOSOPHY!!!!A.H. from eng.umd.edu at 5:02pm ET
Hi Chris -- how do you think you can prove the existence of God using mathematics?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Langan at 5:04pm ET
You have to prove that the universe is a self-referential system. Then you have to examine the attributes of this system, analyze the system to determine how it behaves. It turns out that in certain ways it behaves mentally like a mind. The natural question to ask then is: whose mind are we talking about? The answer to that question is the mind of God.
Einstein was on a similar path!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgZ3zKNYURU
http://www.gozillago.net/prose/Einstein.htmlEinstein is reported in a well-known story to have said of his physics career, that everything he had done, he had done in an effort to know the mind of God ...
There's a clear fallacy in what he's stating there.
Given that the universe behaves like a mind, and given that the only minds that we know are ours and the ones of other beings we have access to,
then in order to understand that the universe behaves like a mind,
the mind the universe shoud have been modeled onto must be either ours, or the one of other animals,
so if he actually thinks that we, or another animal, are God!!
Basically, the last line is prophet-like bullshit just to coinvece and brainwash people. Loser.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
There's a clear fallacy in what he's stating there.
Given that the universe behaves like a mind, and given that the only minds that we know are ours and the ones of other beings we have access to, then in order to understand that the universe behaves like a mind, the mind the universe shoud have been modeled onto must be either ours, or the one of other animals,so if he actually thinks that we, or another animal, are God!!
Basically, the last line is prophet-like bullshit just to coinvece and brainwash people. Loser.
Essentially the conclusion to his theory could be nothing other than that all people are part of the divine, therefore a part of the mind of God, and that we are all striving through "self-determinination" to become one with the divine. I think you are understanding now FDG ...
I think he watched too much neon genesis evangelionThere's a clear fallacy in what he's stating there.
Given that the universe behaves like a mind, and given that the only minds that we know are ours and the ones of other beings we have access to, then in order to understand that the universe behaves like a mind, the mind the universe shoud have been modeled onto must be either ours, or the one of other animals,so if he actually thinks that we, or another animal, are God!!
Basically, the last line is prophet-like bullshit just to coinvece and brainwash people. Loser.
Essentially the conclusion to his theory could be nothing other than that all people are part of the divine, therefore a part of the mind of God, and that we are all striving through "self-determinination" to become one with the divine. I think you are understanding now FDG ...
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Or similarly applicable BS ...
Oops. I got you confused with "Rich".I'm following the discussion with interest, but I've promised to hold off on my version and arguments till a week has passedRick, I'd like to see some arguments ...
What he is trying to do is unite moral and descriptive philosophy. I too am skeptical that such a unification is possible.
In CTMU, he comes to the conclusion that the universe's evolution can be expressed with a kind of recursive function. This makes sense, but he interprets that recursive function teleologically, i.e., the universe is evolving towards something. I don't think his interpretation is incorrect, exactly, but it's hard to see how it has any relation to human morality, the choices we make on a daily basis.
He also wants to eliminate the analytic-synthetic distinction. But he even admits that it's necessary to assume that such a unification is possible in the first place.
You have to have some admiration for what he's trying to do, I think.
I think he's either ESTp or ENTp. Regardless, he is an ass and I'm glad he's not a part of my life in any way. I don't care how smart he is.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Well, he is taking an eastern idea that has been westernized, and mixing in linear and circular notions in with it. It does not work and is quite contradictory.
It stems from the belief in karma, whereas the actions you take today shape your future destiny and good actions bring you closer to actualizing the mind of God. It is true if you believe that karma has an effect on your life.
I suppose ... I still do not think the guy is near as smart as he likes to claim.He also wants to eliminate the analytic-synthetic distinction. But he even admits that it's necessary to assume that such a unification is possible in the first place.
He does have some things he discusses that are reconizablybased, except that it is difficult to discern between what he is doing and philosophy he has, because Buddhism and Nondualism is for the most part an
I agree that he isn't as smart as he claims to be. At some point he will be found to have committed fraud. You read it here first!
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
This guy isn't necessarily claiming to be smart -- he simply has the highest IQ around (195). That means many of his thought processes are extremely fast and accurate, his verbal skills are amazing, he is very good at observing numerical patterns, doing computations, envisioning objects in his mind and twisting them around, and everything else entailed in the IQ test.
In writing, he comes across similarly to:
http://www.rebelscience.org/
and
http://www.hedweb.com/ (and related sites)
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Just because someone's thought processes are fast, and accurate, and they are good at detecting patterns and all that BS does not mean that they have any ability at all to understand any of it and/or piece it together. Someone could do 2+2=4 with out understanding what is happening at all if all they did was remember that sequence of characters in that particular order. Just as someone can use a complicated math problem to prove a point as long as they know that it will prove the point, they do not have to understand it PERIOD.
Fast and accurate tought process means that he is also able to figure out a new problem. They have to be fast and accurate over all the domain of possible situation, otherwise they would not be fast and accurate.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I am underwhelmed by him. His alleged amazing binary computing ability (which is basically what IQ is, IMO) does not seem to have granted him wisdom or foresight. He should stick to bartending or whatever.
I would guess ESTj, not because he lacks wisdom, but because he seems to not use any(seems like he just pretends to).
I also want to add that his system is laughably impractical. You can never, EVER, create a universal ethical system for the entire world. Society has to be managed, you can't exact total control over it.
The way to solve much of the world's problems is through scientific advancement, not moral micro-management. But so many people are too shockingly foolish to see this. Time after time, people who think the world would be a better place if they were in control either fantasize about some authoritarian system they could create, (although such a system is never referred to as such) or somehow actually manage to obtain some measure of power, which invariably leads to utter disaster, yet collectively we fail to learn the lesson.
My solution is for the scientists of the world to cooperate on a massive scale and solve problems like disease, birth control, and food and water availability. Whatever solutions result from this effort should be slowly, carefully assimilated into society. We don't need some cocky redneck genius to make sweeping catastrophic changes to our planet.
^Great post.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
This sounds like a typical argument for why machines can't be intelligent.
Of course there are varying degrees of understanding.
But how do you test for intelligence if not by ability to solve new problems?
The problem with what the guy is proposing has nothing to do with what he is necessarily proposing, because he got virtually everything he talks about from somewhere else and absolutly none of it is new. The problem is that he thinks that adding his own twist to it and forcing other people to follow suit with what he proposes is the best solution, when it does not begin to say anything relevant to adressing actual solutions for anything. Not to mention that it takes an equivalent to a PHD in Philosophy and Religion both just to understand what the hell it is he is entirely implying. Now, I could technically potentially have a PHD knowledge in both of these and I see where the guy is headed and I see what it is he is trying to say and do, but like you have said it does not take a PHD for atleast any common idiot see that it is not entirely practical. Any idiot can see it is impractical. Solutions need to be practical for idiots or idiots are just going to stay being idiots and that definatelly is not helping nor is it really a solution for anything. If anything, what he proposes [with his own twist] is counterintuitive to what he proposes. It is a lose-lose system.
People seem to latch onto the simplistic idea that a spiritual renaissance is needed for humanity to attain happiness. This is a naive notion that should be stamped out. The fact of the matter is that human happiness depends greatly on physical conditions being met. A happy, content little monk in China can still get grumpy when he has explosive diarrhea four times in one day. Any happy person can become miserable if he gets into a car accident and becomes quadraplegic. Humanity as a whole will be unhappy as long as people are starving, getting murdered, dying in accidents, and getting cancer. These are the things that need to be dealt with for people to be happy.
Star Trek. A cheesy example, but an applicable one, nonetheless. Do you notice how all the people on Earth in Star Trek are all happy? It's not because everyone's girlfriends are walking around carrying Kirk's illegitimate children. It's because none of them are getting raped in alleys, dying of diseases, getting into accidents, or worrying about food. I have no idea how that specific social structure is supposed to work, (though I think it has something to do with most important operations being made into generic computer routines that are accomplished automatically, and thus requiring no hard larbor) but the point is that people there are happy and productive as a whole.
I believe humans are spiritual in nature, so when we physically meet our needs, we also spiritually evolve and flourish. Some people are disturbed by the idea that our spirit may be affected by physical conditions, but I view this negative state as simply a single point in the dimensions of our existence, (many of which we are not aware of and cannot directly perceive, except conceptually) which go far beyond our human experience.
I enjoyed this. It's a quality philosophical argument that is in favor of public health.
asd
Technically I think that is what the guy is actually philosophically trying to achieve with his theory ... the problem now is that the only person his theory applies to is himself and assuming the man achieves his goal of ever becoming the world's guidance councelor [dictator] or worse everyone else is just along for the ride going 'what the hell?!?' ...
good notes, discojoe. and there's substantial amount of research to back up your position.
there were a couple of ideas that the smart guy had that had some potential, though. one is his position on academia....so true. success in academia is dependent on a slow, political process just like any other progress. and academia is "the man" in a huge sense of the word. but this just reflects the way the species functions, really. politically. by means of social deception and persuasion. not necessarily by facts.
he's saying the reason the species functions this way is because we regress to the mean, the the bell of the bell shaped curve dominates decision making. whereas if highly intelligent people (like him i guess) made the decisionsj, maybe the decisions would be better? not sure about this. but the point that is interesting is what if the entire species were involving toward greater intelligence....how would this affect the way we live together and make decisions? sure would be a long way off, though, and we're bound to wreck everything before then.
there are many social costs of the political and social arms race of deception, and counter deception moves. i think social deception is like sinning. from a christian standpoint, we are quite simply all sinners. that sinning is built into the species. the idea is to become aware of your sinning, and believe in christ. this is the spiritual journey we are on.
as smart as the smart man is, i wonder how well he grasps the pervasive and persistent nature of man and how much these "flaws" are built into the species for the purposes of survival, and the idea that the spiritual goal is to transcend them?
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
Here's my assessment of his type:
http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/0...st-man-in.html
Reply With Quote
