/sci/ - Science & Math

Fuck off, and take your retarded thread with you.

>>8001009
Show your working

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--Nbz6flw5A

He's a narcissist with theories no one takes seriously. Not to say they're wrong, but his work isn't empirical nor is it observable. He's a bit of a joke to people who don't go '200 IQ!! genuoose xd.' Not to say he isn't highly intelligent, he absolutely is, just read his cognitive-theoretic model, but he comes off as completely over-hyping himself with this air of extrapolative self-importance. He skipped several grades and was always hailed as a genius by his teachers. He quit his state university because thought he could teach his teachers more than they could teach him, and also recognized it for the bureaucracy it is. He basically looks down on average IQ people and thinks higher IQ people should rule the world and make decisions, believes in criterion eugenics, disguises it with the euphemism 'dis-genics.' He created the Mega Foundation, which allows people with relatively exceedingly high IQs (150 and up I believe) to create and share their ideas with institutional confirmation. He's not a hack persay, but his work reads like word salad to most people, making him inaccessible. He understands this but proceeds anyways. Leading researchers can't believe in his theories since they're too interpretive. I liked his CTMU a lot but I don't like him as person. Just watch the video.

>>8001714
Actually, I shouldn't say it's because the CTMU isn't empirical or observable, it's because it uses an interdisciplinary approach to solving the processes of the mind proportionate to it's relation with the external world, using linguistics and physics, and the researchers who have reviewed his work usually have expertise in only one or two areas, Langan has expertise in most subjects. It also uses tons of jargon and the vocabulary is precise yet expansive, it's just tough to understand and observe concretely. Universities don't like that, they want to publish things accessible to most people, they want publicity, and most people are just completely unable to understand the paper. They want to be able to send Chris off to speak to a wide range of people, and the theories present in the CTMU are unable to be boiled down simply, unlike, say, Einstein's work on relativity.

>>8001742
What a load of horseshit. He's a fraudster who has never made an intellectual accomplishment in his life. It's not because he's "too smart" to be understood, it's because he's not actually saying anything.

>>8001754
It's not black and white like that. Universities spend their time on things that will have a good ROI. They're still a business, and not interested in fostering something as abstract as the CTMU. They want recognition and prestige. What does this rely on? A substantial amount of people paying attention to the research they're publishing.

>>8001773
>Universities spend their time on things that will have a good ROI.
There are many many philosophers peddling similar things as Langan that somehow are in academia. And considering that Langan has a higher public profile than many of these people, your argument makes no sense. But this is a red herring. I don't care whether universities reject him or he simply chooses not to be in academia. It really doesn't matter at all towards whether Langan is intelligent or saying anything meaningful.

Would an intelligent person obsess over IQ as Langan does?
Would an intelligent person respond to critics of his theory by claiming that they are only pretending to not understand his theory?
Would an intelligent person say something like "your consciousness continues to go on after death because nothing is wasted in the universe?"

It's just obscurantist metaphysics. Academia is filled with that stuff.

>>8001811
Langan, for his IQ mostly, has a higher public profile, yes, but we're talking about academia and communicating ideas and submitting research papers and proliferating knowledge that routes back to the institution. I'm not saying academics are pretending not to understand him, they definitely do. Thinking over the details of what I said earlier I take back what I said. The CTMU paper just isn't observable or testable.

>>8001833
As far as I can see, Langan is quite prolific in writing about CTMU. So how exactly would he have problems with academia? I don't see any evidence or reason to believe that he has been rejected by academia at large. I think that HE has chosen to reject academia, perhaps because he is afraid of having to respond to criticism in a mature manner in a professional setting. Instead he surrounds himself with other people obsessed with high IQ and with other intelligent design proponents. This is his right, but it certainly shouldn't be used as an excuse for why his intelligence is unrecognized. I think he relishes the idea of being a "misunderstood" genius. I think both his actions and his theory itself prove him to be a fraudster more than a genius.

>>8001714
>>8001742
>>8001857
How much time have you spent contemplating Langan? You're so articulate I suspect you have an obsession

>>8002139
You're responding to two different people. I don't contemplate Langan outside these stupid meme threads.

1/2

I think that, if he really was into something meaningful in science, then he would end up being recognized by other specialists, and not simply being ignored as he mostly is. CTMU has been around for a long time, yet nothing seems to have emerged from it.

From what I can get, the discoveries in science depend of many factors, not simply the intelligence of the person who creates the theory. One needs to have been born in the right time, for example: Newton and Einstein’s theories would eventually be formulated by other people, even if they were never born: the world where they lived in was prepared for that arrival. So, the first main thing you need is for the scientific building to be complete up to the point you can actually innovate. No matter how brilliant one was, it would not have been capable of discovering relativity in ancient Athens, in the 400b.c.

The second thing a lot of people forget is that intelligence alone is not going to save you. Genius is (like I have already read somewhere) the happy result of many different factors. If you are really intelligent, but chose to isolate yourself, to not submit your work to peer review, to not be forever actualizing your knowledge, talking with colleagues and seeing what are they up to, not permitting your knowledge to be fertilized by the fresh and recent knowledge of others – if you choose to turn your back to all of that then you are probably going to lack (in a practical manner) a lot of the necessary building blocks to make significant discoveries.

>>8002199

2/2

There is also the creativity question. Creativity is a mysterious brain result (at least I have never seen a definitive concept about it, nor a way of “seeing” how the brain of certain individuals function during the creative act), and I am not sure that many of high IQ people have the capacity to create. They solve problems fast and absorb and understand a lot of knowledge more efficiently that anybody else, and yet why cant they dream with new worlds and new solutions for open questions in the arts and sciences? That’s a mystery to me.

>>8002199
>I think that, if he really was into something meaningful in science, then he would end up being recognized by other specialists, and not simply being ignored as he mostly is. CTMU has been around for a long time, yet nothing seems to have emerged from it.

Wikipedia:

>He calls his proposal "a true 'Theory of Everything', a cross between John Archibald Wheeler's 'Participatory Universe' and Stephen Hawking's 'Imaginary Time' theory of cosmology."[7] In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has claimed: "You can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."[10]

Now, if he could REALLY prove the existence of the soul, god and afterlife with math he would be one of the most famous scientists in the world.

How can someone who has “mathematically proved” some of the greatest mysteries of all time, some of the greatest questions of humanity in all the periods of history, how can someone this brilliant and so wonderful a finding be ignored by the specialists (and, in the simplified form, by the public)?

>>8002200
>why cant they dream with new worlds and new solutions for open questions in the arts and sciences?
The correlation between intelligence and conscientiousness is zero. Advancing science requires a great deal of persistence on top of all that pure cognitive power. Some intelligent people just don't care to focus on a specific topic for extended periods of time and thus never achieve anything

>>8002139
No, I just remember things easily and can describe them well. Especially biographies.

He has the brain of a Ferrari that runs on low grade fuel. In other words he has the potential to do great things but lacks a formal education. This is what you get when you take an intelligent mind and starve it of nutrition. He is essentially a crackpot and no one takes him seriously due to it.

>>8002856
in other words, autistic.

>>8002869
You got me

I remember reading somewhere that he does have a lot of analytical and creative skills, but he lacks the emotional intelligence that other geniuses (such as Einstein or Feynman) had, thus being unable to be anything more than famous for having a high IQ.

>>8002880
what an autist would say

He's pretty good evidence that a high IQ doesn't stop you being a brainlet.

>>8002869
>>8002912
The brainlet quivers and shakes,
"autism" he screams, as his mind aches.

Reminds me of Rick Rosner, because of his extremely high IQ he lacks the ability to apply it in a meaningful way.

>>8002863
Formal education is a bullshit circlejerk past high school.
Palmer Luckey didn't have to go to college to invent the Oculus.

I'm saying this as someone who does go to college because I'm a pleb.

>>8002222
He can prove the existence of an afterlife? Holy shit, why aren't people working on understanding this instead ofMochizuki? Various nobel prizes and a fields medal abound!

>>8001714
>>8001742
I remember this site where he came to defend his theories and this physicist commenter posted a b8 question that actually made no sense if you knew anything about physics, and Langan took the b8 hook line and sinker and tried to give some bullshit response, then got real mad once he got called out by the same physicist for talking shit who told him that the question was intended to see if he could spot bullshit when he saw it

Or something like that anyway. I don't have the link but I think the site might still be up. Was more than a few years ago, I think.

Marilyn Vos Savant has the highest recorded IQ ever, doesn't she? She became a columnist answering riddles her readers would send her. I can't tell which is a greater waste of cognitive resources, her or Langan

>>8003698
Well, you have a point. All I'm saying is the guy has a brilliant mind with high potential, but he fed his brain badly and thus his high potential turned into spewing out garbage.

>>8004106
IQ =/= cognitive resources

>>8004287
I don't see your point. IQ is a measure of cognitive abilities, isn't it? Langan just didn't use his abilities to pursue anything meaningful

>>8004106
Controversy came from its criticism of Wiles’ proof; she was said to misunderstand mathematical induction, proof by contradiction, and imaginary numbers.[23]
sounds like a retard

>>8004308
If you could choose to have either a) a supercomputer or b) the unlocked personal laptop of anyone you choose, wouldn't you choose b? The laptop would probably contain more valuable resources (information) to offer society. I hope that's a fair analogy.

>>8004308
You assume Langan had the ability in the first place simply because he scored a high IQ. That's a silly assumption. IQ is not a measure of cognitive ability, it is a measure of how well you answer questions on an IQ test. Intellectual achievement is quite different from answering questions on a test. So don't obsess over IQ.

Watching his videos, he appears to be a narcissistic psychopath with a low understanding of logical fallacies [odd, since he claims to have mastered Epistemology] that tries to reconcile science with already disproven religious historicity.
On top of that he just repeats common sense.
I just can't get over his constant use of logical fallacies though and his attempts to reconcile religion and science.
It's odd seeing someone with a reported high IQ use the argument from ignorance over and over.

Here's another high IQ goofball that's irrational:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_G._Rosner

He sued Who Wants To Be A Millionaire even though he was wrong.

>>8005620
If you equate cognitive resources to knowledge and information, then we are talking about two different things. Knowledge is produced when cognitive abilities are put to use in a meaningful way, such as answering a scientific question. Of course Langan never did that, but had he done it, he probably would have had a good chance at contributing something. He just didn't care to do so; maybe his personality is to blame?

To answer your computer question, it would depend on my goals. Supercomputers compute, and personal laptops contain knowledge. The supercomputer Deep Blue would allow me to beat Garry Kasparov at chess if I wanted. Warren Buffet's personal laptop might give me the insight to make a few good trades on the stock market if that's what I wanted.

too bad he's not smart enough to see how little his obscurantist jargon will matter to the world. If he really had something to say he would work to make it available to be heard, but he does not seem interested in this.

>>8005645
Those who answer questions well on IQ tests generally do well in other cognitive tasks. This is a well established phenomenon. Of course they have to conscientious, among other things, to actually achieve something later on.

Check out University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson's lecture on IQ, he explains this pretty well. It's a bit long but worth the watch in my opinion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6rm0LrO9vU

>>8006173
this, the guy is not as smart as he thinks he is.

unless he is making hard predictions based on his theories he is not doing science, hes doing pseudoscience.

>>8006201
>Those who answer questions well on IQ tests generally do well in other cognitive tasks.
So you think a "general" observation immediately applies to one person. Do you see a problem?

Also, what specifically do you mean by "cognitive tasks". I don't think there is much research on substantial intellectual achievement. Psychometric research tends to use cognitive proxies a lot, because they are easy and economical to measure. But the problem with this is any psychometric test can be gamed, specifically because it is a proxy and not the real thing. That's what Chris Langan has done. I would actually bet AGAINST anyone who seeks high IQ scores or achieves incredibly high IQ scores of having the ability to make intellectual achievements, because this implies a psychological need to be seen as a genius despite lacking the ability of a genius. And I think that's fundamentally what Chris Langan's personality is.

>>8006201
Since Feynman scored between 120-125, this means anyone that scores 126 and higher is smarter than Feynman right? Wrong.

>>8006623
>So you think a "general" observation immediately applies to one person
I don't think I've made this claim. I've just said conscientiousness is an important trait for people to achieve things, it's hard work

>>8006623
>Also, what specifically do you mean by "cognitive tasks"
As in learning new things, and IQ tends to predict that to some degree. Let's say you're choosing individuals to study advanced math and you've administered an IQ test to group of people, would you rather choose the lower half or the higher half on the scores? This doesn't mean someone from the lower half couldn't excel in maths, it just a bit less likely than for someone from the higher half, there's always measurement error and IQ isn't a perfect construct, as you've said

>>8006252

Science is overrated, hope this helps!

>>8006252
>unless he is making hard predictions based on his theories he is not doing science

isn't that what strong theory is? and yet string theorists are considered legit scientists

>>8002199
>Newton and Einstein’s theories would eventually be formulated by other people, even if they were never born

false. it's like saying another Greek would have conquered Persia if Alexander had never been born. there are no tenable grounds on which to assert something like this

>>8001714

>Heaven is real in my mind

Is this guy a jew by any chance?

>>8007821

Newton set physics back by a hundred years with his trash formulation of mechanics. Thank goodness Lagrange and Hamilton set things straight because yeesh.

>>8006682
You: "IQ is a measure of cognitive abilities, isn't it? Langan just didn't use his abilities to pursue anything meaningful"

hes strong but his power level isnt nearly as high as the SSJ4ohnVonNeumannator himself

>>8007829
Don't talk shit about Newton you nigger.

>>8007835
Yeah, I did say that, but I later tried to make the point its not the sole determinant of achievement

>>8007829
Sure but you don't develop Lagrangian and Hamiltonian without Newton's building blocks.

>>8003821
That sounds hilarious, hope someone posts it

>>8006252
Pretty sure he's just doing philosophy

>>8007837
dangerously smug

>In a 2014 radio interview, Langan said that he has worked on the P versus NP problem and thinks he can prove that P does not equal NP

ooh im curious now

>>8010009
why?

>>8010009
I really want this to be true.

>>8010009
This would make a fantastic story if proved this