Chris Langan - smartest man in the world

[Gilly]

I don't see how anyone can see him and listen to him talk and think he's even remotely Ne/Si>Se/Ni. He just seems like the absolute pinnacle of decisive rationality.

[Gilly]

Lol also his attitude towards leadership is pretty stereotypical of Beta Rationals..."Of course I should be in charge!"

[Beautiful sky]

SLI

[Gilly]

LSI

For some reason he reminds me a lot of Ashton... not that I think they're the same type. An 8 thing, probably.

I can see where that comes from; they both kind of have the same implicit attitude of obviousness.

[Esaman]

Ashton.
Sadly, I don't know what you are talking about. "Causal-Determinist" is no Reinin dichotomy and I don't know what "IEs" stands for. Model A as presented on wikisocion is the model I am getting myself familiar with.
In its description of ISTj PoLR "LSIs do not tolerate ambiguity, and so dislike abstract ideals that are not directly based on their experience."
Also aboiut their creative: "LSIs prefer to apply their clear, logical thinking to forcibly affect how the real world is organized, rather than simply producing conjectures or thought exercises that have no material application. LSIs prefer to work with systems of "real" things — material assets, organizations, management, and production — and to perfect their structure and organization.
Philosophical frameworks and ethics are very much intangible things that are ambiguous before and often after you figure them out.

I don't see how anyone can see him and listen to him talk and think he's even remotely Ne/Si>Se/Ni. He just seems like the absolute pinnacle of decisive rationality.

He talks decisive, because he is confident about his ideas. Also he practices to project Se every night at his job. But really he is a pushover. He dropped out of college because he felt treated unjustly - people assumed negative things about him. The last drop for him was that he couldn't go confront some people about some paperwork. .. feel your pain identical. He then went for lowest hanging fruit - construction work, and hasn't made career progress since. Why? Because he is all in his head and doesn't really mind. Ne allows that. Se doesn't.

[Gilly]

Ashton.
Sadly, I don't know what you are talking about. "Causal-Determinist" is no Reinin dichotomy and I don't know what "IEs" stands for. Model A as presented on wikisocion is the model I am getting myself familiar with.
In its description of ISTj PoLR "LSIs do not tolerate ambiguity, and so dislike abstract ideals that are not directly based on their experience."
Also aboiut their creative: "LSIs prefer to apply their clear, logical thinking to forcibly affect how the real world is organized, rather than simply producing conjectures or thought exercises that have no material application. LSIs prefer to work with systems of "real" things — material assets, organizations, management, and production — and to perfect their structure and organization.
Philosophical frameworks and ethics are very much intangible things that are ambiguous before and often after you figure them out.


He talks decisive, because he is confident about his ideas. Also he practices to project Se every night at his job. But really he is a pushover. He dropped out of college because he felt treated unjustly - people assumed negative things about him. The last drop for him was that he couldn't go confront some people about some paperwork. .. feel your pain identical. He then went for lowest hanging fruit - construction work, and hasn't made career progress since. Why? Because he is all in his head and doesn't really mind. Ne allows that. Se doesn't.

You don't know what Information Elements are? Please learn the theory before you post. Thanks.

[Galen]

He talks decisive, because he is confident about his ideas. Also he practices to project Se every night at his job. But really he is a pushover. He dropped out of college because he felt treated unjustly - people assumed negative things about him. The last drop for him was that he couldn't go confront some people about some paperwork. .. feel your pain identical. He then went for lowest hanging fruit - construction work, and hasn't made career progress since. Why? Because he is all in his head and doesn't really mind. Ne allows that. Se doesn't.

A pushover? Really? I'd love to see you two throw hands, see who comes out on top.

[EyeSeeCold]

He talks decisive, because he is confident about his ideas. Also he practices to project Se every night at his job. But really he is a pushover. He dropped out of college because he felt treated unjustly - people assumed negative things about him. The last drop for him was that he couldn't go confront some people about some paperwork. .. feel your pain identical. He then went for lowest hanging fruit - construction work, and hasn't made career progress since. Why? Because he is all in his head and doesn't really mind. Ne allows that. Se doesn't.

I don't really see that as pointing to Ne > Se. It could also point to being a Logical Introvert.

Also, as for being a pushover and whatnot, he apparently worked out until he had the physicality to beat down his own father and kick him out the house for good. That's not being a pushover. He took the necessary steps to achieve what he wanted, a likely argument for ST.



Oh yea, LSI

[krieger]

let's also not omit the fact that ISTjs have Ni as a decently powerful 6th function, so even under the interpretation that N is transcribable as abstraction (which i think far from without merit) the mixed bag of abstract and concrete features to his thoughts and actions is adequately explained.

but yeah, bouncer, construction work, beating up dad... plenty of things to point at as stereotype ST signals.

[Esaman]

You don't know what Information Elements are? Please learn the theory before you post. Thanks.

I know what informational elements are. I just didn't decipher the abbreviation, because I was expecting something more specific. Have a nice day.

Also, as for being a pushover and whatnot, he apparently worked out until he had the physicality to beat down his own father and kick him out the house for good. That's not being a pushover. He took the necessary steps to achieve what he wanted, a likely argument for ST.

There is a difference between going for what you want and being forced to do something. Working out is only logical. If LII is abused physically and doesn't see other way out, he will fight back and do it decisively, because he can't do it continuously.

Ashton and labocat, I will look in to your points. Thanks.

[woofwoofl]

"Causal-Determinist" is no Reinin dichotomy

It's two, specifically Positivism (one half of Positivism/Negativism) and Process (one half of Process/Result); the remaining three cognitive styles are as follows:

Negativism + Process = Dialectical-Algorithmic
Positivism + Result = Vortical-Synergetic
Negativism + Result = Holographical-Panoramic


And hell yes, LSI for Chris Langan!

[717495]

LSI

For some reason he reminds me a lot of Ashton... not that I think they're the same type. An 8 thing, probably.

Yeah, Ashton that Ti and Fe? Definitely not, I agree.

[Disturbed]

i don't remember if i've said this on here before but his type is lsi-se. one thing i do agree with him about is the problem of regressiveness towards the mean, or as i call it excessive satisfaction with mediocrity, which he frequently gets annoyed by (i do too) and the more mediocrity by leaders, the less happy people will be. people with 145 iqs can be satisfied with mediocrity or at least not appreciate excellence and often do mediocre work themselves. what he proposes seems impractical to some, but it's not really. however, he does the opposite of what he claims (consistency, i'm skeptical that anyone can get all that consistent) and many, many people still need accurate observations and to be aware of them to go with logic. the continental rationalism and british empiricism were both good, even though i ultimately favor rationalism.

[Jarno]

i don't remember if i've said this on here before but his type is lsi-se. one thing i do agree with him about is the problem of regressiveness towards the mean, or as i call it excessive satisfaction with mediocrity, which he frequently gets annoyed by (i do too) and the more mediocrity by leaders, the less happy people will be. people with 145 iqs can be satisfied with mediocrity or at least not appreciate excellence and often do mediocre work themselves. what he proposes seems impractical to some, but it's not really. however, he does the opposite of what he claims (consistency, i'm skeptical that anyone can get all that consistent) and many, many people still need accurate observations and to be aware of them to go with logic. the continental rationalism and british empiricism were both good, even though i ultimately favor rationalism.

1) I agree with your typing, LSI-se is what I think of him too.
2) The world is made by mediocre people, for mediocre people. Gifted people often don't feel at home in it.

[Djangr]

LII

[Nunki]

His PoLR is not extroverted sensing. I've been following him for quite awhile, in spite of not agreeing with his politics (he's on the far right, whereas I'm decidedly liberal), and I can say that he's as Se-valuing as all get out. I think he's an LSI or possibly an SLE. Definitely not an LII.

[Djangr]

Type and Se and politics have very little to do with each other. Politics have more to do with upbringing etc.

[Exodus]

I probably know more about Langan and his work than anyone on this site, and I have never seen a reason to change this typing, he is and was LSI. His political views have become even more extreme and prejudiced over the years.

[Sol]

I probably know more about Langan and his work than anyone on this site, and I have never seen a reason to change this typing, he is and was LSI

would be enough to know about his mustaches and to see cold sight
agree with LSI as most possible

[Sol]

Type and Se and politics have very little to do with each other

Jung type is also how a human perceives the world - what dominates in his mind, what methods prefers. Human's behavior and social/political sympathies are linked with this type.

People of S types prefer simple and rough methods. Se have easier relation to physical violence.
Non valued Ne - lesser tolerance to unusual, lesser variety. Non valued Si - simpler esthetics, easier meal, "Spartan" alike minimalism to physical comfort (check USSR mass products). Valued Ni - possibility to trust in long strategies (incl. projectism), ideology can have much of irrational and naive elements (what sometimes is fantasies going nowhere). Valued Se - physical/material methods of control are popular - money, physical punishments, high value to hold the existing and add new territory and other material resources.

[Nunki]

Type and Se and politics have very little to do with each other. Politics have more to do with upbringing etc.

I didn't mean that I thought he was Se because of his politics. The reason I think he's an Se ego is that he has a forceful and dominating personality.

[Djangr]

Jung type is also how a human perceives the world - what dominates in his mind, what methods prefers. Human's behavior and social/political sympathies are linked with this type.

People of S types prefer simple and rough methods. Se have easier relation to physical violence.
Non valued Ne - lesser tolerance to unusual, lesser variety. Non valued Si - simpler esthetics, easier meal, "Spartan" alike minimalism to physical comfort (check USSR mass products). Valued Ni - possibility to trust in long strategies (incl. projectism), ideology can have much of irrational and naive elements (what sometimes is fantasies going nowhere). Valued Se - physical/material methods of control are popular - money, physical punishments, high value to hold the existing and add new territory and other material resources.

I would say that there might be a higher frequency of some type in some areas then other but usually it is a good mix of most types. You will rarley see groups with only one socionic type. Many other factors play a bigger role then type when it comes to politics. Most people dont even know which politics that benefit them most really. It might even be so that how you feel about the political leaders or how the views are given to you. Also what kind of group of people you spend time with and the views of them and economic situation of your family. Actually I heard most political views you hold have to do with your childhood and upbringing. Imo politics and type have a low correlation. Not enought to base a typing on but sure, E -> lefty, L -> right, S maybe prone to be conservitive. Most people are middle and derivation from that middle is usually not a type thing.

[Djangr]

Jung type is also how a human perceives the world - what dominates in his mind, what methods prefers. Human's behavior and social/political sympathies are linked with this type.

People of S types prefer simple and rough methods. Se have easier relation to physical violence.
Non valued Ne - lesser tolerance to unusual, lesser variety. Non valued Si - simpler esthetics, easier meal, "Spartan" alike minimalism to physical comfort (check USSR mass products). Valued Ni - possibility to trust in long strategies (incl. projectism), ideology can have much of irrational and naive elements (what sometimes is fantasies going nowhere). Valued Se - physical/material methods of control are popular - money, physical punishments, high value to hold the existing and add new territory and other material resources.

His PoLR is not extroverted sensing. I've been following him for quite awhile, in spite of not agreeing with his politics (he's on the far right, whereas I'm decidedly liberal), and I can say that he's as Se-valuing as all get out. I think he's an LSI or possibly an SLE. Definitely not an LII.

Ok. LSI then.

[Disturbed]

.

[Distance]

let's also not omit the fact that ISTjs have Ni as a decently powerful 6th function, so even under the interpretation that N is transcribable as abstraction (which i think far from without merit) the mixed bag of abstract and concrete features to his thoughts and actions is adequately explained.

but yeah, bouncer, construction work, beating up dad... plenty of things to point at as stereotype ST signals.

Best closest line for a type.

[Northstar]

IEI in Alivenomics.

[FDG]

i don't remember if i've said this on here before but his type is lsi-se. one thing i do agree with him about is the problem of regressiveness towards the mean, or as i call it excessive satisfaction with mediocrity, which he frequently gets annoyed by (i do too) and the more mediocrity by leaders, the less happy people will be. people with 145 iqs can be satisfied with mediocrity or at least not appreciate excellence and often do mediocre work themselves. what he proposes seems impractical to some, but it's not really. however, he does the opposite of what he claims (consistency, i'm skeptical that anyone can get all that consistent) and many, many people still need accurate observations and to be aware of them to go with logic. the continental rationalism and british empiricism were both good, even though i ultimately favor rationalism.

Yeah I agree with LSI-Se, he also has some hints of ESI here and there...

Definitely agree having an IQ of 143, that we are kind of satisfied about living a mediocre life in a normal place. You need those 30 points more to really be sure to get out of society.

[theum nathair]

Having watched maybe half of the first video, this is all very hyped and he’s so smug, saying Darwin’s IQ was 'way down in the toilet at 135' —IQs testing didn’t exist in Darwin’s day so first of all his 'score' is, to put things generously, mere speculation; second this bloke’s score is quite speculative as well as it doesn’t sound as if he’s had an IQ assessment with an invigilator, and possibly more importantly, the unnamed test he took, which sounds like the sort of booklet that comes in the post (out-of-date version of clickbait), may not have tested a sufficient quantity of individuals to be reliably standardised for coherent comparison with other IQ measures*.

Even if his IQ is as high as he claims, what of it? Who is this bloke that he can look down on Darwin... he serves alcoholic beverages, a feat many of us have managed for ourselves since teen years... True, outcomes depend on more than individual potential. Also true, many or even most people have never had their IQs tested, and that's putting aside flaws in IQ as a concept… 'smartest' is therefore too subjective; 'genius' imo should be restricted to those who have accomplishments of a certain calibre (e.g., Darwin). Even the title is too extravagant; the 'smartest' man in the world (viz., having the highest tested IQ) is Marilyn vos Savant.

*Many claims these days come from online IQ tests. In an official, invigilated test, I had only 136, yet in online tests I’ve always scored an implausible 150+, and in two cases something utterly ridiculous like 190 or 210. The numbers people chuck into these types of discussions are unreliable. And by the way, I’ve no bloody genius. Darwin truly had. If his score could be estimated as lower than mine, it only goes to show that IQ is nonsense.

Just for the record, this Chris Whatever’s Wikipedia page says he believes the Bush Administration staged 9/11 with the intention of distracting the world from this Chris bloke’s naff theories. What a narcissist… what a nutter. Those singing his praises should learn the hallmarks of a confidence trickster.

[Ikite iru]

Repeat after me - IEI

Seems normalizing

[Metamorph]

Having watched maybe half of the first video, this is all very hyped and he’s so smug, saying Darwin’s IQ was 'way down in the toilet at 135' —IQs testing didn’t exist in Darwin’s day so first of all his 'score' is, to put things generously, mere speculation; second this bloke’s score is quite speculative as well as it doesn’t sound as if he’s had an IQ assessment with an invigilator, and possibly more importantly, the unnamed test he took, which sounds like the sort of booklet that comes in the post (out-of-date version of clickbait), may not have tested a sufficient quantity of individuals to be reliably standardised for coherent comparison with other IQ measures*.

Even if his IQ is as high as he claims, what of it? Who is this bloke that he can look down on Darwin... he serves alcoholic beverages, a feat many of us have managed for ourselves since teen years... True, outcomes depend on more than individual potential. Also true, many or even most people have never had their IQs tested, and that's putting aside flaws in IQ as a concept… 'smartest' is therefore too subjective; 'genius' imo should be restricted to those who have accomplishments of a certain calibre (e.g., Darwin). Even the title is too extravagant; the 'smartest' man in the world (viz., having the highest tested IQ) is Marilyn vos Savant.

*Many claims these days come from online IQ tests. In an official, invigilated test, I had only 136, yet in online tests I’ve always scored an implausible 150+, and in two cases something utterly ridiculous like 190 or 210. The numbers people chuck into these types of discussions are unreliable. And by the way, I’ve no bloody genius. Darwin truly had. If his score could be estimated as lower than mine, it only goes to show that IQ is nonsense.

Just for the record, this Chris Whatever’s Wikipedia page says he believes the Bush Administration staged 9/11 with the intention of distracting the world from this Chris bloke’s naff theories. What a narcissist… what a nutter. Those singing his praises should learn the hallmarks of a confidence trickster.

It's the16types.info. If they can fall for one or another confidence trickster to get here, they can fall for this thread. Never mind the topic of narcissists and nutters.

[Nunki]

His wife is a weirdo. She prays for her enemies to be damned to hell, believes in Bible code bullshit, and considers Hillary Clinton to be on the same level morally as Pol Pot. He's not much better, being a far-right racist who believes in vaccine, chemtrail, and election conspiracies. I do enjoy his theories about God and the nature of reality, but I suspect that if his views are that far off in the ways I just mentioned that his philosophical ideas are probably also flawed.

[The Reality Denialist]

A brief look at the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" seems to me like he tries to hammer it down with logic with the tools that language provides. I'm interested to hear his view on so-called AI. I don't see it much different from the religious nuts that try to pin down a prediction using so-called holy scriptures.

[hellohellohello]

LSI fo sho

[Nunki]

I often browse Chris Langan's page for the CTMU (the name for his theory about the nature of reality) on Facebook. Earlier this morning, my eyes widened with surprise when I read a post of his in which he stated that he's basically the embodiment of "Logos." For those who don't know, the term Logos in his theories is partially derived from the Bible, where one of the authors thereof states that Jesus is the Word--or, in Greek, the Logos. So he's basically stating that he believes himself to be the second coming of Jesus. What that says about his personality type, I don't know, but it's rather interesting nonetheless.

[DogOfDanger]

That really depends on how you interpret Christianity. For example, some people believe that when Christ claimed to be God he was actually speaking to some divine spark that existed both within him, but also within all people who believe in God. Another interpretation is that, by believing in Jesus, people can receive this divinity within themselves. So by that logic every person that believes in God or in Jesus would be an embodiment of the logos.

[Nunki]

That really depends on how you interpret Christianity. For example, some people believe that when Christ claimed to be God he was actually speaking to some divine spark that existed both within him, but also within all people who believe in God. Another interpretation is that, by believing in Jesus, people can receive this divinity within themselves. So by that logic every person that believes in God or in Jesus would be an embodiment of the logos.

Interesting point. However, I don't think that's quite what he meant. Here's the quote:

Nevertheless, one could say that In this world at this time, I'm the living physical embodiment of Logos whether I like it or not.

I'm not lording it over anyone - I have no cult, no apostles at my feet, no real money. But given that none of the evil creatures dominating this world have stood up to honestly witness my priority [...]

It sounds like he views it as a status unique to him at this moment in history. If that isn't what he meant, he could have made himself clearer.

[DogOfDanger]

Okay yeah, that is pretty delusional.

[Metamorph]

I often browse Chris Langan's page for the CTMU (the name for his theory about the nature of reality) on Facebook. Earlier this morning, my eyes widened with surprise when I read a post of his in which he stated that he's basically the embodiment of "Logos." For those who don't know, the term Logos in his theories is partially derived from the Bible, where one of the authors thereof states that Jesus is the Word--or, in Greek, the Logos. So he's basically stating that he believes himself to be the second coming of Jesus. What that says about his personality type, I don't know, but it's rather interesting nonetheless.

I think he's just delusional. He's also almost certainly delusional about being the smartest man in the world, never mind the smartest person (even if you just go by IQ scores of people who have actually taken the specialized tests, as regular IQ tests cap out at 160 or so, a woman scored 20 points higher than him.) I've resisted the urge to pick fights with him on Substack whenever he keeps saying stupid shit (and he says a lot of stupid shit) because that would just be a waste of my time. For that matter, posting on 16t verges on being a waste of my time, except here it feels like there are too many people I'm already bound up with who I either need to cut myself off from or get to go somewhere else.

The stupid shit he says isn't by any means limited to calling himself the second coming of Jesus or blaming everything on the "globalist occupying government" (read: the Jews!) His CTMU theory has lots of inconsistencies since he keeps using the wrong definitions of words and then whenever anyone points it out he just browbeats them. In fact the entire CTMU is based on an incorrect definition of a word, since he says humanity needs to move to metareligion which he views as a synthesis of all religions (geez, that isn't culty at all) but metareligion would just mean a commentary on religion like metanarrative means a commentary on a narrative. For example, if you play video games, the meta isn't everything combined, the meta is the build the community has decided is the standard way to design your character because there's another level of commentary.

He's basically just a huge narcissist in my opinion, but the CTMU isn't like Time Cube level batshit or anything. He basically just reinvented Hegel and took credit for it. Which should make a lot of his claims like being the Logos completely unsurprising in light of him having just reinvented Hegel. Hegel wasn't that batshit, but people back then used Hegel to claim things like God was incarnating through the German state and stuff like that, so it is extremely unsurprising a huge narcissist would use Hegel to claim God is actually incarnating through himself instead. I also tend to doubt he's as smart as he thinks even if he probably does have a genius IQ because he self-identifies as the pinnacle of humanity while I and most of the other smart people I know basically jokingly identify as mutants and aliens and wonder if we're even the same species. If you go like "yep, I'm definitely human," I'm going to doubt you're actually as smart as you think.

[Metamorph]

A brief look at the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" seems to me like he tries to hammer it down with logic with the tools that language provides. I'm interested to hear his view on so-called AI. I don't see it much different from the religious nuts that try to pin down a prediction using so-called holy scriptures.

Yeah, it's just a religious theory. He basically believes he's the God-Emperor of Mankind based on his unreliable IQ test scores (whereas I don't even know if I'm the same species as anyone else, and I tend to view him as less intelligent largely because he's not so alienated despite all his right-wing conspiracies. Conspiracists are basically his tribe now, after all.) I had someone compare some theory I came up with to his and that somewhat offended me, and I had to remember where I heard his name before. Oh, here, that's where I heard it before. I was stating that I thought there's a linguistic nature to reality which is what caused the comparison, but the thing is everything I was saying is testable and none of it was aimed at proving God exists.

So I ended up actually reading his theory until I understood it (which didn't require reading all of his bloviating posts luckily, he's basically just sloppily recreating Hegel in order to call himself uniquely God incarnate in my opinion, and he misuses all sorts of words, all his ideas are ones I've heard before) and then I ended up rebutting all the religious nut stuff without ever addressing him or his theory so people wouldn't compare what I said to what he said again just because I think there's a linguistic structure to reality. Like guys, that's a really old idea. That goes back to German idealism and Ursula K. Le Guin books (Wizard of Earthsea etc.) and other ancient things. Please don't compare me to this loser. But if people who like his ideas realize the flaws in them because they read my version that's great. Just my ideas about reality having linguistic structures isn't a religious idea, it's something I'm trying to use in computing, cognitive science/psychology, and biophysics which is falsifiable and makes predictions, and I don't run around saying I proved God because if anyone proved God it's just Kurt Gödel ages so that's not a new idea and thus not a priority to me either.

Also even the Daily Wire wouldn't let this nutter on their show. He's too extreme for them. I think they also didn't like his "we must synthesize all the religions like the New Age philosophy demands in order to save humanity from transhumanism!" idea at all. People who believe in God and Jesus just tend to believe in God and Jesus, not "religion" in general, even if their motives might be something really misguided like "we need Christianity to save Western culture!" rather than having actually come to the conclusion that God and/or Jesus are real.

[Metamorph]

That being said, Chris Langan reminds me there are a lot of really talented people legitimately being left behind by society for stupid reasons nowadays. Chris Langan also appears just to be a bad person since he's running around calling himself the second coming of Christ while also blaming all his problems on the Joos, but a lot of people who don't seem like bad people are being left behind too which is one of the reasons I even bothered to try to get myself unbanned and come back to 16t. People deserve another chance or two as long as I don't put too much of my time and energy into it. I was one of the people being left behind by society in my opinion which is why I'm saying this.

There are lots of people in the world who are being given basically no outlet to get what they want in a lot of cases, whether it's all the kids who used to post on the ROBLOX music forum when that still existed about how "today's music sucks" or the fact the US space program was virtually nonexistent until less than a month ago, or what I posted about in the Heresy Thread where it's been discovered that 11.5% of French people actually hate cheese which is rather a lot of people. I see too many people basically just getting dissociated from the world if the world is like "would you like the Camembert or the cordon bleu?" and this person just hates cheese, or they get asked if they want Nicki Minaj or AJR and they just want Led Zeppelin. The world is always trying to get you down and I think to some degree that's a feature and not a bug, and I think it's intentionally obfuscated too.

I think people like Chris Langan because he speaks to a lot of old sci-fi and vaguely-magical types of ideas which attracts a lot of people who are into things like all these old science fiction books that draw from Hegel, Kant, and similar philosophies, but he's also a terrible person and his version is not-so-secretly just a religion centered around him, which got him kicked off the Daily Wire, so it's a trap.