# Significance and Velocity of Ideas.

*Interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen of Insight Journal*

*Wednesday, April 19<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>11:57 PM Queenstown, New Zealand Time</time>

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="contents">Contents</a>

- [Author](#author)
- [Edit History](#edit-history)
- [Preface](#preface)
- [Introduction](#introduction)
- [Interview Request](#interview-request)
- [Significance and Velocity of Ideas](#significance-and-velocity-of-ideas)
  - [My Intelligence](#my-intelligence)
    - [The General Plausibility of Scaling Intelligence, and Our Unfortunate Inability to Create Tests that can Rank Measure It](#the-general-plausibility-of-scaling-intelligence-and-our-unfortunate-inability-to-create-tests-that-can-rank-measure-it)
    - [The Suspension of Inquiry Concerning the Intelligence of Historical Figures](#the-suspension-of-inquiry-concerning-the-intelligence-of-historical-figures)
  - [The Value of the Mensa Membership from My Perspective](#the-value-of-the-mensa-membership-from-my-perspective)
  - [Comforts and Discomforts Among the Most Intelligent](#comforts-and-discomforts-among-the-most-intelligent)
  - [Two Pathways in Life and the Desire to Blend Them](#two-pathways-in-life-and-the-desire-to-blend-them)
  - [Learning More About Intelligent People, and How they are Measured, and Intelligence Itself](#learning-more-about-intelligent-people-and-how-they-are-measured-and-intelligence-itself)
- [Interview Questions](#interview-questions)
- [Concluding Response](#concluding-response)
- [Appendix](#appendix)
- [References](#references)

### <a name="author">Author</a>

*Author: Dr.<sup>[9](notes.html#9)</sup> Mattanaw, Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh, Retired*

- Masters Business & Economics, Harvard University (In Progress)
- Attorney, Pro Se, Litigation, Trial, Depositions, Contracts (E.g. State of Alaska v. Pugh, et. al.)<sup>[4](notes.html#4)</sup>
- B.S. Psychology, University of Maryland, 4.0, Summa Cum Laude<sup>[1](notes.html#1)</sup>
- B.S. Computer & Information Science, University of Maryland, 3.91, Magna Cum Laude<sup>[2](notes.html#2)</sup>
- B.A. Philosophy, University of Maryland.<sup>[3](notes.html#3)</sup>
- G.E.D., State of Maryland, Montgomery County, 1999.

Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems

Current President/Advisor, Social Architects and Economists International.

Contact:

- [cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu](mailto:cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu)
- [christopher.matthew.cavanaugh@member.mensa.org](mailto:christopher.matthew.cavanaugh@member.mensa.org)
- [mattanaw@mattanaw.org](mailto:mattanaw@mattanaw.org)

Resumé

- [Professional Resumé](resume.pdf)

### <a name="edit-history">Edit History</a>

- *Wednesday, April 19<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>11:57 PM Queenstown, New Zealand Time</time>
- *Friday, July 1<sup>st</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>1:32 PM Alaska Time</time>


### <a name="preface">Preface</a>

This essay is a response to a kind interview request from Mr. Scott Douglas Jacobsen of Insight Journal, on various topics of interest relating to the experiences of people of high ranging intelligence. He has posed a number of questions that are of good interest to the high intelligence community, and others who might have concerns about the credibility of certain intelligent figures, historical and current. Seeing relationships between the various questions, I have chosen, instead of answering each individually, to provide a single combined response, which may bring together the topics into one that will allow for more general understanding. I have spent considerable time thinking and rethinking this subject, believing it important particularly as it relates to the question of cult leadership. Thinking it worthwhile to develop the topic further, I hope there is durable interest and utility in my responses here, which would bring value to Mr. Jacobsen's Journal itself. The questions themselves can be found at the end of the article. I have included along with each question a pointer to the section in which the question has been given treatment, as a sort of index to the essay.

<a name="introduction"></a>

### Introduction

This article treats of the topics of how a person, including those from the general public, can identify if another person is extremely smart, in the higher range of intelligence, and how one can identify who is a high intelligence charlatan; or else a high IQ person who might pose special risks to others in the general public. There is no assumption in this article that highly intelligent people pose special risks which warrant negative opinions regarding unknown smart individuals. Being able to identify the intelligence of others, relates to how one might decide to continue to interact. It is discussed how someone with very high intelligence might determine whether one is of appropriate company for friendly acquaintanceship with the purpose of mutual development, which is very different than a relationship to a cult leader who is impressive in various ways, or someone who has harmful intentions. A germane idea to this is the concept I created of *[velocity of significance](glossary.html#velocity-of-significance)* which relates to measuring learning and creativity, as it permeates conversation and productive behavior. Having permeated behavior, it is pervasive in its effects, and can be used as a focal point for evaluating others informally. The finding of this paper is that two separate processes are required which relate to this concept, and also the concept of trust. The cause of the separate processes, which could be joined into a single process but need to be separate within it, is that some will not have adequate psychological tools to evaluate trustworthiness directly, talking with someone. Others, however, who are much more equipped, including some of the highly intelligent, can more rapidly discover probability of trustworthiness.

This entire essay could potentially be summarized as an attempt at determining how one might know or discover if someone is really smart or not, particularly at the highest levels of intelligence. While it might seem as though this is an easy issue, which can be solved using standardized tests, and perhaps some appraisal of historical or autobiographical events, this would not be adequate because it would be incomplete. One question posed by Mr. Jacobsen that is hard to resolve is whether one is a charlatan or not, at the highest levels of intelligence, including founders of HighIQ groups, even if this person apparently has made it into high IQ societies, and apparently has some autobiographical support. It is possible to fake one's way into the communities, with varying difficulties depending on which and when. Creating a HighIQ community, is easy for anyone, and may allow one to bypass entirely the requirements that other IQ communities would have. This is of special interest within the high IQ community which does know that people can slip in who do not belong, even if they are very kind. Inside and outside of the high IQ community, there are concerns about highly intelligent people who can be special risks to others, either by defrauding people with a false persona, or by using their intelligence which cannot be well detected against them in ways that are malicious. These questions are related and people really are affected, and there are good reasons to give some answers which might be better than those that have been provided previously. I believe I have been successful with that in the response below, with limitations that I myself point out.

Also of interest is the topic of who was smart in the past and determining how smart they really were. Past prominent figures are of special interest, but their prominence has detracted understanding of who else was very intelligent, and sometimes the prominent figures do not have any testing justifying psychometric conversations, apart from productions they have had, that resulted in their prominence. This question relates to an interest some in the community have, or determing how smart their peers are and whether their peers appear to be people worth commingling with, even if they belong to the same club which has as its mission giving people opportunities to find people who are like themselves.

## <a name="interview-request">Interview Request</a>

*Scott Douglas Jacobsen:*

You wrote an interesting article entitled "How Do People With IQs Over 180 Act and Think?" (Cavanaugh, 2018). You bring forward individuals like Richard Feynman, Bertrand Russell, Paul Cooijmans, Grady Towers, and societies such as the Mega Society, the Giga Society, and Mensa International. By and large, these are well-known within the high-IQ communities, of which I sit out in the Oort Cloud with a telescope making notes enjoying the show and sending occasional correspondence for interviews with members of these communities. I am not a formal member of these communities. I have contributed to publications or had positions for which I’m grateful, but no formal legitimate memberships because of no formal test to determine the merit of the matter or deep abiding interest at that level, as some societies do not require test scores, permit second test scores, or utilize, widely, alternative tests with varying degrees of legitimacy in the measurement of the psychological construct of g, general intelligence. As far as I know, those societies with strict mainstream intelligence test requirements are Mensa International and the Triple Nine Society, especially with Mensa International having formal testing sites online or, pre-coronavirus, invigilation stations all over the world. These are important to consider, internationally, even sophisticated frauds exist in the high-IQ communities with a grotesque example in the multi-level marketer (scammer), human trafficker, and cult leader Keith Raniere with the organization NXIVM where he was known as "Vanguard." To a more on-point tune and as a point of clarification to start us off here today, with Feynman’s declared IQ of 126 (no S.D. mentioned), as stated in the article, what is the factual status of Feynman’s declared IQ in contrast to professional commentary or considerations of his mathematical abilities?


*Mattanaw:*

These are interesting and important questions, which I will combine together for response below, in the article, here entitled *Significance and Velocity of Ideas*. Being somewhat sensitive myself to risky questions,  which may have alternative intentions, even if accidentally in their wording, I had to perform some kind but charitable deburring of the above interview request. I have translated specific questions to my liking, in the end sections which serves as an index, [Interview Questions](#interview-questions). I do answer some questions more directly, within the article, where relevance seems to call for invoking the question, and where earlier first responses prepared seemed good for inclusion. I first answered all questions before realizing I should combine them given other thoughts and work. Overall, I think people do need a way to identify risky people, particularly those who may become or are powerful in various ways, including just on the individual level. I also think it's important, to finally put into proper perspective what we can know about past figures, in which information is lacking. They cannot speak for themselves but routinely are called to mind, by people who quickly include assumptions, or false information regarding how smart they are. Many examples exist online and in the media, about misestimation of former figures who were prominent. I think below my article will help regarding the topic of trust and accuracy, regarding how to know who is intelligent, and what roughly their level of intelligence might be, particularly while they are living, are already tested, and their productions exist for survey and analysis. I belong to this later group, being alive to respond here, but also for having many openly demonstrable productions, ample open career history, and a long history of psychometric testing, including psychologist-proctored testing, and perhaps some self-made fame in and via the HighIQ community.

## <a name="significance-and-velocity-of-ideas">Significance and Velocity of Ideas</a>

### <a name="my-intelligence">My Intelligence</a>

*Some Autobiographical Notes Concerning My Testing and Validation.* I was fortunate enough to be tested early in childhood once, again in middle school, and twice as an adult, confirmed immeasurable, with ceiling results on both the WAIS-IV and Stanford Binet 5 (SB-V), both verbal and visuospatial. I was prompted to get tested again as an adult, after solving the problem shared in the book *Outliers* which supposedly tests at the maximum level using a culture-fair matrix reasoning test item, which really is like those provided on proctored psychometric exams. If this is included, I've had 5 confirmations. Having had the degree of confirmation that I’ve received, I have a somewhat hard time imagining what the life of a charlatan must be like, but I believe I’m uniquely situated for identifying charlatans, and people who are really genuinely intelligent who might have malintent in the treatment of others, who should certainly be protected. My background also makes me uniquely ready and already experienced in making detections, for my own safety, and for the safety of others.

More details regarding my history of psychometrics, including a [brief bio and some personal statistics](bio-and-stats.html) along with background information has been published in my book, [Book and Journal of Mattanaw](mattanaw.org). Additionally, I have a history of open and honest transparency and have shared extensive [information about my identity](open-health-mattanaw.html) including my birth certificate, passport, other identification cards, and health information, including fingerprints, retinas, other psychological test results regarding personality, and blood tests. I am a strict vegetarian, and vegan of over 20 years and have supplied this information as verification of health effects of this lifestyle. I have also included my pilots logbook for my training in flight, which allowed me to gain a solo endorsement, to fly alown on my own, to continue my flight flight training. It may be that I've provided more information as to my identity than nearly anyone has, and this information was published and available prior to considering any potentially related questions in this interview.

I have also provided my [professional resumé](resume.pdf), which also includes openly my psychometric details including my results of intelligence tests. These have been shared with various customers of mine, and prior employers, since approximately 2015. All of my customers and earlier employers are aware of my psychometric details, and this has influence colleagues and customers, many of whom were attentive enough to read these details and potentially discuss them between each other. This same information, and additional information, including Mensa ID, Harvard ID, and other details have been published on my [LinkedIn page](http://www.linkedin.com) for years. I have also published [customer references](work-and-career-recommendations.html) sharing openly recommendations from my customers, many of whom are executives or upper managers and technologists of well-known corporations or corporations serving customers everyone knows about. It also established my work for federal and state and local governments, and governments and organizations internally, and even includes my work for the President and First Lady of the United States, and other public officials. I have an open list of my [company's customers further indicating career success](related-accomplishments.html#career-success), which is a short listat 85, but will be extended as I recall various companies I've supported. I am now retired although I own my company, Social Architects and Economists International, in which I Preside and act as Chief Architect. I've been very successful professionally and financially and am now retired, at 42 years old. These details provide ample information regarding my combination of intelligence and level of productivity, and range of humans skills, which have permitted me to work with various important leaders globally. I am a continual traveler now focusing on writing and media productions which are slowly being incorporated into my [book and journal](mattanaw.org) in progress. This book is built using technology I architected and engineered myself, and have used for many of the customers listed, and is a hybrid publication, being a website for various devices as well.

My book is about a wide array of interdisciplinary topics related in various ways to moral philosophy, ethics, the sciences, and technology. Coverage is very wide and materials have been shared on hundreds of occasions with the high intelligence community and my colleagues. Being a work on moral philosophy demonstrably started in my early twenties over 20 years ago, with handwritten archived materials provided, it should be clear that I'm greatly interested in ethics and ethical behavior, which is a cause of my being a vegetarian for so long, which is only one way that I've infused my behavior extensively with methodical moral processes, which have some writing concerning in [Architecture of Ethics](architecture.html).

A question was posed by Mr. Jacobsen concerning trustworthiness of certain figures who are also of claimed high intelligence who may have been harmful. Others may include those with fake names and aliases. The above information should convey that I'm very much different from anyone who would recieve any accusations, and I've set myself apart by providing detailed information regarding many aspects of my life. My book is also my living autobiography which includes details and images which some would consider private, like photos in a personal family photo album, or images off of a camera phone, or private archive. All my photos that I have in my possession excepting some few that have not been digitized have already been provided. I actively upload photos directly from my camera phone, making few if any deletions at all, including private planning related information, information about whereabouts, even where it appears to be irrelevant. All supports life evidence supporting my autobiography. My name, Mattanaw, is my true name. I changed my name to approximate a mononym from my old name Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh, utilizing my existing alias and domain name. It's used and recognized publicly. My complete full name now, on [legal documents](civil-law.html), and in my court order on my [identity page](open-health-mattanaw.html), show it is being widely utilized for legal functions, even as acting attorney. My full name is "Mattanaw Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh Mattanaw" which includes my older name as amiddle name, and repeats the mononym, since I anticipated social media and various data systems require a first and last name. One cannot easily change one's name to a true mononym. My passport also shows the same name, and is used for my travels. I am originally a U.S. Citizen but I live in a number of other countries, and think myself a proponent of global friendly citizenship.

The above may provide, through itself, some evidence of high range giftedness. However, I want to provide clarity as it relates to interview questions, particularly one interview question which relates to my reading interests coming from the High IQ community itself. One article from Noesis concerns experiences of those with many talents and was written by Hank Pfeffer of the Mega Society. I was known from youth to be talented in everything I attempted. I'm experienced in music, art, photography, and am extremely physically fit. I excel at a wide range of sport and games, and enjoy bodybuilding. My appearance may confuse others as to my intellectual capabilities and age. I am univeristy educated in a number of disciplines, which themselves do not make clear all the interdisciplinary interrelationships with other studies which are expansive. I write concerning the foundation of mathematics and logic, and computing. I'm a virtuoso blind typer, and customers have experienced this as I guided meetings and conducted interviews. Since I was young I was an entertaining person, with good humor, and ability to hold long focused conversations of various types, with any type of person. I keep many of these activities current, which is a challenge for most. There is much more I could say regarding my interests and talents but the effect would be one related to the challenges faced by those with very high giftedness. It is really difficult to convey who you are and what you can do, and what your life has been comprised of, with all its complexity.

> #### <a name="the-general-plausibility-of-scaling-intelligence-and-our-unfortunate-inability-to-create-tests-that-can-rank-measure-it">The General Plausibility of Scaling Intelligence, and Our Unfortunate Inability to Create Tests that can Rank Measure It</a>.

> From my understanding, there are very difficult norming requirements for tests exceeding the range of the Stanford-Binet and Weschler, meaning that a very large sample pool of test participants must make themselves available in order to validate the test scoring, and ranking with the general population. I don’t think this limitation has been overcome except for some tests that are not themselves IQ tests, but academic tests, that supposedly correlate well to IQ tests. These tests, the academic ones, do have some credibility to me, for establishing higher capabilities. Especially the Miller Analogies Test, although that test is not culture-fair, and has some definite limitations for testing people not very well exposed to culture in the English language. It cannot be used to provide a raw IQ score, in the same way as a true IQ test, but can be trusted to provide rank differentiation at an unheard of level, of 8 Standard Deviations, as published by Pearson. Older versions of the SAT have similar claim to IQ correlation at a high range. Tests like these have significant investment behind them, and many years of usage as standardized tests. People trust them enough to place them on resumé’s and applications, to the effect that there is tracing of their personal history involved, and one might argue, even health records. There is very little risk of being seriously manipulated by such tests that have such significant support. They’ve been adopted by major universities that have an interest in protecting the records of their students, and these universities would not be interested in storing data that may involve a strong manipulative component.

> The other category of tests that exist for extending the ceiling of standardized high IQ tests, in a way that is more closely related to standardized IQ tests, that are as a rule created by individuals, or small groups, with special interests in creating the tests. There may be some few researchers in the sciences wanting to extend research, but these are the minority from what I see. Those named by Mr. Jacobsen may have some credibility, as more objective individuals creating tests, but nevertheless, there are serious flaws to these endeavors. As a rule, they never achieve standardization or acceptance by a large body that is willing to administer the tests separately at a cost. There is no professional acceptance of these tests that validate their authenticity, and no support from psychological associations that is reputation risking. This is very different from the other tests discussed earlier, the one’s I’ve taken, and have been exposed to, that everyone knows and uses. This problem of having no standardization, having a lack of norming for real rank ordering with the population, little to no adoption, and low support from major organizations really does completely diminish the value of these tests. It creates a health risk to take these tests, and risk to records, and risks to one’s own credibility, for deciding to believe results that cannot be validated, that were created and provided by an individual with vested interests. The individual motive of wanting to have research that has useful and truthful results, even if the results really are not useful or truthful, is already a known risk in the sciences. One must eventually find support from peers and from institutions to have credibility, not only with papers that are published resulting from research, but more especially for anything resulting in what would require ethical committee approval for ongoing research with human participants. In my experience in Psychology, test designs involving human participants require approval in advance, and disclosures need to be made to anyone involved, including disclosures about the possible inapplicability of results. Creating a psychological exam that will be used by people over many years, is effectively including them in a long term social-psychological study, and very definitely would invoke the involvement of an ethical committee if created in a university context before it could be administered to even volunteers. In a university context, it may be possible to apply for and gain approval from an ethical committee to conduct research on experimental tests, with hopes of eventually publishing them for more general use in the larger population. But I think those efforts would be instantly thwarted by inability to actually get sufficient research done, because after all, one is attempting to measure the high range. Can one even obtain participants, at the university, using the student population, who score at the levels that are interesting? How does one broaden such studies, to a number of universities, to gain more participants? Now consider, further, that one must definitely devote one’s career to make such an enterprise successful. Has any Psychologist had success doing this, and is there any promising research on this front, to have a test finally standardized for this purpose?

> Now consider who is creating these tests. They are not created in a university context, with volunteers, after approvals from an ethical committee. These test creators are operating outside of any system of checks and balances on quality of research, and on the ethics of continuing with a completed test!

> In my experience in the high IQ societies, there are obvious damning motives making these tests from individual creators, outside the context of the Psychological sciences, making them mostly untrustworthy. 

> 1. There is a motivation to create and lead societies on the basis of these tests, that are “higher societies”.
> 1. There is a motivation to perpetuate societies that seem to have higher authority, and protect these already created tests that were used for admission.
> 1. There is a motivation to protect one’s investment in having taken a dubious test created by an individual.
> 1. There is a motivation to self-validate using these tests. Meaning test creators use these tests on themselves to pretend they’ve been proven they are the smartest, and that they are legitimate “leaders” of the entire community.
> 1. At the very worst, there is also the motivation to provide tests that simply inflate scores because one has not scored well on anything else, or well enough to create self-satisfaction.

> There is a very unfortunate result of these observations. The first is that there are very incredible obstacles to overcome to arrive at a serious test, following the steps required in the sciences, in an academic environment. I believe individual test creators are very likely to have research that does not lead to a completed test, allowed to be administered at a cost, by psychologists. The second is that everyone who is not doing this way will be unable to demonstrate that they do not have any of the above motives. By doing it outside of the sciences one is creating a product that definitely has not had ethical committee backing, or peer review/support. 

> There are severe issues of utility around these tests:

> 1. Very few people hit the ceiling of IQ tests and could want to take additional tests to learn more.
> 1. The tests created cannot even establish a rank order, that one could use to “finally know one’s IQ”.
> 1. Anyone who uses such a test to “improve their rank” has openly exhibited self-deception, and a motive to deceive others. We have seen that such a test could only be produced in a university setting with huge numbers of participants.
> 1. The most intelligent should be the most aware of these limitations, and yet illustrate their self-deception by trusting such tests.

> The people who hope to benefit from these tests then illustrate cognitive biases for ultimately believing the results. Notice they would have no such error, in simply stating they do not know their IQs because of the limitations of the trusted standard tests! No, they’ve gone further, to trust tests their own intellects reveal to have no rank-ordering value, and then they use it to rank themselves with it, out of motives to increase authority and prestige.

> In short: 

> When being untestable is not enough, we find pretend scores.

> It may be that some test creators, who are researchers within the discipline of Psychology, may have fewer motivations to do anything that is not completely in the interests of science, and may exhibit a genuine desire for obtaining accurate psychometrics. I also implicitly agree, that there is a plain scaling problem in measuring intelligence, and that since one has already scaled the difficulty of subtest scores on standardized tests, one can obviously scale them further until a diminishing pool of people can respond with correct answers. The problem is one cannot rank order them in a trusted way without overcoming difficult norming requirements, that have not been overcome. The ceiling problem exists, because once one has gotten all answers on a test, there is a clear feeling that one could go further. Meaning one is certainly smarter than one has been measured to be. However, knowing that this scaling problem exists, and knowing that there is a definite point in which problems would be too complex for me to solve, does not imply that, scaling it on my own, creating my own test, will reveal where others would fail, across the ceiling, so that I can score myself and them with a new FSIQ, higher than that provided by other tests. 

> The intuition that this scaling can be continued is what I think drives some to create tests. But I don’t think they succeed, very often, in creating good tests, and fall far short of having something even worth attempting to norm. 

> Every score coming from these tests involve some commitment to a rank-order that is not trustworthy. To take these tests and believe the results, often coming from a single person with no training in psychology, has a very bad effect on the test taker, who believes the number represents a summary of their mental capacity. 

>> “I’ve used a test created by an individual to summarize my entire mind, or my entire cognitive ability.”

> Very little argumentation is required to demonstrate that this is a poor idea, and yet, those who attempt to show they are the very smartest rely on these tests. They often create and rely on these tests. Yet anyone can take a test favorable to their strengths, and scale it further, and pretend to have a rank score higher. They would certainly have a rank score higher if scaled correctly, but they have no idea what that would really be. Then they satisfy themselves with percentile rankings with the rest of the human population. This shows a very bad state of affairs in the highest IQ societies, that rely exclusively on tests that were created by individuals.

> One is vastly more safe taking standardized tests with lower ceilings, and committing to remaining content with not knowing how far one could go beyond the ceiling. This is because there are very few bad motives in these tests, and they are well established and standardized, and believing one’s scores is not an act of self-deception. At the higher ranges, it appears there is always an element of self-deception. Again, this is what the Prometheus society seeks to avoid, by taking a totally standardized test as its only one for admission, from academia, the only place where the test could be normed. This is an extremely great difference than having a society creator make a test on their own. 

> One already knows the mind is not as testable as one should like it to be, and we already know FSIQ is not itself adequate to depict anyone’s mind as a whole, and so why not just be happy with one’s scores, already unobtainable to most of the population.

> The reason for this is the better pool of participants who are required to take the tests, and these tests, of course, are relied upon by admissions at Universities, as a measure of achievement, but more bluntly, it is intended to measure individual capacities. I believe IQ tests would be preferred tests, for directly measuring what one wants to know about someone, rather than indirectly, although of course, if one performs well on these academic tests, there is additional information about one’s cultural knowledge that is useful for determining if a student might be successful.

> This norming requirement is important enough that societies at or above the 4SD range have to rely on either tests it has constructed, or academic tests that seem to correlate to IQ, that have had a much larger pool of participants for establishing reliable rank results.

> To give an example, one society admitting at 4 Standard Deviations, or FSIQ rarity of about 1/33,000, with percentile score of about 99.997%, only the Miller Analogies Test is trusted. Societies above 4 Standard Deviations, at 5 or 6 Deviations, have had to rely on specialized tests, that have not been normed to confirm the reliability of the rank ordering. This means these higher societies are much more dubious in their membership claims.

> I have explored the potential of taking alternative tests for getting a more accurate prediction of my range, having the issue of not knowing my true intelligence from attaining ceiling scores on more established IQ tests, on portions that are both culture-fair, and portions that are not culture-fair, that correspond directly in content to those tests created for the highest ranges. For example, the mega test was created by Mr. Ronald Hoefflin, with reliance on culture fair properties that involve pattern recognition, mathematical abilities relating to visuospatial manipulation of geometric objects and the like, areas that I score maximally on standard IQ tests. Similarly, the Miller Analogies Test focuses on vocabulary, which relates to a subtest, again, that I scored maximally (untestable vocabulary). Each test resembles tests I have scored at 99.89% on a well-normed standardized IQ test.

> Folks such as myself really have no good options for establishing IQ. We can rely on an academic test that is not culture fair like the Miller Analogies test, or else resort to tests created by some very intelligent members of the high IQ Societies, and some scam artists. These tests, from my examination, having very good familiarity with reliable tests, and university training to be a psychologist, are untrustworthy; and not only for statistical limitations on norming, but much worse, the strong desire of various personalities to “prove” that they are the smartest, using alternative tests:

>> “I’ll create the test that says I score high, or a friend will.”

> Using these tests that allow dubious societies that exist, at a range for which no paper test can ever be relied upon to confirm. These societies are comprised of many who simply do not appear all that intelligent, and seem to have found alternative methods for gaining community access.

> Entire societies and their credibility hinge on whether or not their tests that are used for admission really do test what they claim to test. Even societies like Mega, that draw interest and some belief in authenticity from having interesting members, hinge on tests made by individual people; these tests appear difficult, but the appearance of difficultly is not enough to create a trustworthy rank ordering. Tests created by individual people, arguably should not bear a name that creates the impression that it is standardized, and not the creation of one person, who again, makes the test, controls its publication, and controls the scoring. Mega is interesting, but I don’t believe it to be entirely authentic; and every member who was admitted using the test provided is aware of this. Reading the publications, one finds them to be occasionally of very high quality, but the character of the writing is not more complex than what finds in mathematical publications. One cannot read the journal Noesis and conclude that the test used for Mega or the group itself is authentic.

> Mega is more convincing than many other groups that exist peripherally to the more trusted societies that are more obviously serving people’s motives at pretense. There is an oddly huge number of IQ societies, and most that are not well-known are obviously not genuine. They float tests that, again, were created by individuals who do not seem to have the experience or training to create psychological exams. Tests come from individuals who appear to have a vested interest in demonstrating they are the very smartest, and that the societies they create, are authentic enough for people to join. The result however, is that people are deceived as to their own intelligence, taking false tests, and believe themselves to be amidst other people who are highly intelligent. Instead, these groups are filled with a pretender support network, where no individual appears to be authentic, and all trust, believe-in, and rely on, tests created by random people who believe themselves to be “genius” and the like. These groups can be quite humorous and are obviously false, and their tests humorous as well. They mint their own certifications with scores that are well outside of the range of what is testable by real tests, and then they quickly demonstrate they can hardly maintain an intellectual conversation.

> I have also examined directly a test that I purchased from a well-known, very intelligent person in the High IQ societies, who does apparently deserve to be acknowledged for his extreme giftedness. Examining his writings quickly reveals an unusually powerful mind. But his tests do not seem to have the qualities necessary for confirming other’s FSIQ scores, and has the appearance of a single man’s creation. Having already scored maximally on similar testing, there are too many risks to consider tests like this, that seem designed to be able to apply a larger number. 

> There is risk of giving over to a random test constructor some claim to health information. It is unusual to trust a test creator with scoring of tests. Rather, one would expect it to be scored by trained psychometricians/psychologists who adopted the test. One puts oneself at some real risk taking an unstandardized test. One may receive results that one might believe, despite their having little validity. It appears some who have taken false tests have come to really believe their intelligence is at the very highest range; short conversations with some of these people instantly reveals deficiencies rather than high giftedness.

> In short, I do not believe that any test for the upper range can be trusted, and those who reach maximum scores, like myself, have to content themselves with having an untestable intelligence. It is my strong recommendation that people focus on taking test batteries or individual trusted tests, that are standardized, that might have a lower ceiling; but a ceiling that is still high and trusted. 

> One unique test that appears to be very well normed, that is used somewhat less frequently for graduate admissions, is the Miller Analogies Test. This is a fascinating test. Like the vocabulary subtest of other IQ tests, it is believed to on its own provide very good information about someone’s overall intelligence, but it is not culture fair; instead, it is quite culture intensive; and as such, is not a very good test for determining intelligence of those who are not well exposed to English language cultural information. This test could not be administered to a child, and instead could only be administered to someone who has had exposure to a good range of subjects, that might be covered for example Pearson textbooks, as Pearson is the creator of the test, and appears to source its test it’s published texts with glossaries (speculative, but reasonable). It is an analogies test, relying heavily on vocabulary information, and ability to determine precisely correct analogies. This skill and ability appears to be very close to what is a foundational intellectual capacity. It tests up to 8 Standard Deviations, and is claimed to be well normed. 8 SDs is extremely high range, to the extent that one might expect nobody to ever attain a perfect score, or a score close to a perfect score. For a period this is the only test that was acceptable for admissions into the Prometheus Society, which admits at 4 Standard Deviations, or a percentile of ~1/33,000 of the population. This society’s admissions already have a very difficult norming problem faced, and it is meaningful that no other test is accepted for admissions, including IQ tests. 

> As the sole test accepted by this society,  that this test indeed tests at the very high range, and that it is really believed to correlate to IQ.  However, it is very much not a culture fair test, and performing lower than expected would not indicate that one would not perform much higher on a test that is not culture fair. This is an incredibly difficult test, and it is not expected that any test taker will test anywhere near the maximum. In fact on practice tests, one can expect to make many mistakes, even if one performs extremely well. A Mensa level score is one that feels quite poor in its results and number of errors, and yet one learns that one’s score is quite good. If one scored the maximum for this test, at 8 Standard Deviations, one’s percentile IQ score would be expected to be 

> Impressive deceased individuals leaving evidence of profound realizations and productive eminence do not leave me with questions about their intelligence, although I am concerned about hypothetical scores concocted by those interested, that amount to frivolous fabrications. While confirmed writings, art and diagrams may at some time be adequate for AI or forensic intelligence measuring systems to provide useful rank-ordered scores outside of any testing by a proctored psychologist, I believe existing numbers for notable historical figures were invented and are untrustworthy. Probably if they did not leave behind sufficient productions it would be difficult to ascertain their intelligence, even if they did produce great works. My personally authored materials, in Book and Journal of Mattanaw, will leave behind likely adequate data to do such a differential analysis on my intelligence, even disincluding my intelligence scores. However, my intelligence scores exist, and are confirmed. However, my range is not known, having ceiling scores. Using my extremely productive life and mass of artifacts shared openly, it should be possible later, to estimate range above ceilings, using technology, particularly comparing with what is produced by all other people.

> Recently I had in my hands works from Leonardo Da Vinci on Human Anatomy, and while impressed, I saw no reason to fabricate any particular score for his intelligence. One might wonder what motivation would lead someone to such an estimation, having no methodology with any scientific foundation. In such a situation numbers provided appear to be guesses by the excessively interested; the fan who can apply numbers at will to guess IQs in way that damages history. To overstate Da Vinci’s intelligence would not honor his biography as people think that it would; instead it is much better to simply aggregate his works, to admire them, and perhaps use them for estimation using methods which might not yet exist, comparing them to results of modern thinkers who were tested, or methods of AI. My work Book and Journal of Mattanaw, is also my living autobiography. After death I would not want someone who is unknowledgeable to begin overstating my intelligence, as it is incorrect in the same way as understating it. I want my life to be known correctly, or else enable people to admit when they are limited as to evidence or exposure or *understanding* of my work (<a href="6-mattanaw-2023">Mattanaw, 2023, 6</a>).

> Mentioning Da Vinci's name in this context bothers me, but wanting some name from greater antiquity, I chose his. People are more willing to speculate using those names from more recent times, who are very familiar, but have left few artifacts, or have a readership. People have not really read and understood Einstein, for example, and it appears he does not have IQ scores, and his works cannot be comprehended by almost anyone, read directly. Comparing with myself, this appears to be the case as well. Highly intellectual works really are not read or understood but only rarely, by others who are able to appreciate the significance and have intelligence enough to understand what is recorded.

> #### <a name="the-suspension-of-inquiry-concerning-the-intelligence-of-historical-figures">The Suspension of Inquiry Concerning the Intelligence of Historical Figures</a>.

> *More on this topic as it relates to the question pertaining to Richard Feynman*

> I do not believe myself qualified to pronounce final judgment on the topic of Mr. Feynman’s actual intelligence scores, but I do think I can offer some clarity as to the status of this curiosity. I am certain we will not ever have information that will be satisfactory to us. Probably if we could socialize information effectively, we would do well to bring the topic to a rest, without any affirmative conclusion one way or another–for Mr. Feynman’s benefit, and for our benefit of not having to discuss it any longer. It is not fruitful and does not do justice to Mr. Feynman, and I say as much, without diminishing the question put to me, since it is important to emphasize that we certainly will not bring the interest in the topic to a conclusion, but we can bring the topic itself to a conclusion.

> I am not aware of any validation of Feynman’s scores, self-reported and otherwise. This is a perennial topic, a favorite, in the intelligence community forums, I think because of the disparity between his apparent and unquestioned smartness, success in a complex field assumed to be one only accessible to minds of a certain quality, and his having supposedly attained an FSIQ score that would not admit him into Mensa. I’ve seen a score of 126 reported, but have also heard of a score of 130, probably at SD16 given the time period of the tests he would have been exposed to (meaning 132 would be the Mensa requirement for that test). I have not seen any success towards finding facts about Feynman’s mind, beyond these hearsay data points, that would be equivalent to resurrecting and testing a perhaps reluctant Feynman with modern tests. 

> I do not know of anyone I have ever seen discussing him in Mensa or other group as holding the supposed score he attained against him. Rather there is a desire to understand why he would not have scored higher, given the inability of those in Mensa to perform those same feats Feynman performed. “Why does it appear we cannot do what Feynman could do?” Feynman is a Physics Olympiad winner, has had at least one letter recommendation in college of one line stating he was a mathematical genius. He introduced new methods and a system of notation to his field, used by other highly acclaimed physicists only after his contribution, with dependence.

> I believe many think “I am not like him and yet I have a high intelligence score.” Some may misjudge their potential, but probably many really do realize they could not have the mathematical or professional accomplishments Feynman had, given another lifetime of opportunities to make attempts. His talent was evident while he was young and he realized some of his potential as an adult.

> This feeling of not having the ability to accomplish what I would like, witnessing someone like Feynman, is not something I myself experience. Seeing Feynman speak, and knowing what he has accomplished, and witnessing his penetrating style of questioning, I see characteristics I have. I am fortunate for not having a disparity between these traits and my intelligence scores, and witnessing Feynman I wish people would stop questioning him any longer.

> Seeing Feynman I see someone who thinks somewhat like myself, but someone with different interests; I see someone who I would gravitate towards, perhaps, for more intimate friendship and conversation. I do not know how focused he was on the field of physics, but suspect perhaps we would have some differences with respect to range of conversation and potential topics.

> I raise the relationship between Mr. Feynman, and my feelings of similarity to him, because this feeling is related to the validation of other people for their intelligence, and there is was question about identification of charlatans or perhaps dangerous individuals. I will connect these topics when that question again arises in my responses below.

> Feynman’s intelligence will remain an unsettled issue, and I hope the reader recognizes this, and agrees it is not worth being caught up in the mystery any longer. FSIQ scoring relies on a range of tests, and his mathematical abilities imply, by his performance, that he is very able at least on some selection of these subtests. Would this imply that he would perform well on culture-fair pattern recognition tests that would relate to mathematical abilities, that could be used to estimate his FSIQ, putting him in the higher ranges? Perhaps so, or perhaps not, since interests can greatly control one's participation in testing, but it would be questionable still how meaningful such a test would be. It may be, he would prefer to dwell on falsifying the answers to intelligence questions. Test makers created expected answers, that sometimes are not all answers, even on intelligence tests.

> Mr. Feynman is already in the company of Physicists we prize for having unattainable skills and accomplishments. Already he has reached the eminence that the intelligence strive and fail to have for themselves. I place Mr. Feynman in the category of the person of historical interest for intelligence, for whom we have no verified IQ scores we can trust. The conclusion that we cannot know his scores, and instead ought to appraise him by his work, might be said for all those others who are subjects of chronic speculation, including people I would prefer not to name, but will do so, out of hopes the reader will discontinue further speculation (Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Aristotle, Jon von Neumann, Gauss, Charles Darwin, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, William James Sidis, John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell, and any other eminent figure who antedates intelligence scoring, and any figure who has not have intelligence scores taken, who has accomplishments that seem superhuman to those who are aware they could not accomplish the same.



Do you have any particularly favourite articles from Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society?

*Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh (Mattanaw):*

An article I stumbled upon that I quite enjoyed from Noesis is entitled “The Too Many Aptitudes Problem,” written by Hank Pfeffer.

Articles such as this are pleasant for their confirmation that they provide to those who may not have better articulated their own experience. Growing up it was a challenge to really focus my attention on activities that might be more valuable from the perspective of securing my later well-being, reputation, and overall success. It was also valuable confirmation to see the effects that many talents has on attention, since being quite good at diverse tasks can have the consequence of drawing one in many directions, and can create some distress concerning finding those key things to do that are more valuable and fulfilling versus temporarily gratifying for the feeling of delight at experiencing ones skills or ability.

An article that has had a greater impact on me, was the article from Grady Towers, not from Noesis, but from the Prometheus society. This article articulates the alienation one experiences in society not being able to fully express those talents and capacities in a way that is readily received in one’s environment, and the increasing need to occasionally have others who are able to receive this and give confirmation to one’s mind that one experiences privately and cannot well convey to the world, without willing and able communicators, willing at times to be subject to overwhelming energy and intellection. A work environment is not typically a hospitable environment to high giftedness, because the organization must learn and grow at a pace that is slower than, but roughly commensurate with, their normal employees.

These two articles together are part of what I imagine to be somewhat necessary reading for those who have interest in understanding the minds of folks who belong to these high intelligence societies, or those who belong to no society at all, but are functioning independently in the world without any group support.

### <a name="comforts-and-discomforts-among-the-most-intelligent">Comforts and Discomforts Among the Most Intelligent</a>

*Some Comments on Maladaptation at the High Range.* I am a Psychologist exposed, but not a scholar of the Terman study, but understand that part of the results related to what was called “maladaptive” patterns of behavior, which seemed to occur at a greater rate as one approached the very highest scoring "termites" who were subjects of the study. The Terman study is quite a long longitudinal study, having interview touchpoints with subjects at different times of life, with results comprising a number of volumes; and, for purposes of this response, I’m relying more on the article from Grady Towers, which touches on the same topic, and relies on some conclusions of the other study. There is another topic, from Mr. Michael Ferguson, called “[The Inappropriately Excluded](http://michaelwferguson.blogspot.com/p/the-inappropriately-excluded-by-michael.html)<sup><a name="1">1</a></sup>,” and because this article comes to mind, and is also quite well written, I feel I must mention it.

This maladaptive trend relates, again, to the article mentioned above, “The Outsiders”, and presents a consistent picture, that as one moves along the normal distribution one finds people increasingly unable to relate to the larger population around them, in ways that are satisfying to themselves, but not necessarily those they interact with. Of course such a phenomenon finds expression wherever people interact, and is not exclusive to any particular environment where one might hope to have rewarding work or rewarding relationships. Seeking environments that offer satisfaction gradually becomes an exercise in futility, and one finally succumbs to a life that is somewhat lonely, if certain optional decisions or social situations do not occur. This means an apparently futile life, or lonely existence, is one that is potentially wanted and chosen, or results from lack of hospitable environment, however a person feels about it. Some are fortunate enough to find group membership with others who might be hard to find for geographic distribution, and are able to finally have mutually satisfying interactions. Rare people are separated and appear at a distance oftentimes. Work environments might not be possible to find, or may have obstacles and hindrances from admission and entry, that are themselves designed for those who fall lower on the spectrum, and may present an unsatisfying situation of having to “hoop jump” along to a satisfying academic career, that one already surpassed simply using the mind. 

> “I qualify in every way and yet on paper I do not qualify”

was something I experienced and still experience to this day, wondering if Ph.d or two would be worth anything to me, and if years of study to complete a paper dissertation were something valuable given I can easily write papers on par with dissertations, having paid for no Ph.d program, and without having gone through any of the laborious steps to qualify for admissions.

This writing here, again, provides some relationship with the question as to the results of the Terman study, but not being a Terman scholar, and finding this interview a good opportunity to speak for myself, and others who experienced some suffering at the thought of not finding a suitable environment for self-expression, and realization of potential, I thought I’d speak to the ultimate place it leads, which is the feeling of a repulsively slow corporate and academic edifice that strings one along with promises of doctorates and degrees, and good careers, that seem to have little tangible value for being disconnected from concrete accomplishments which flow readily from the mind, but are quite well connected with long and expensive and torturous submissive experiences being a student-customer. One wonders why one cannot read and work in labs without having to spend a decade or more paying for education in indentured servitude at a pace that is for people who are in the normal range and not the extraordinary range. The pace may not really be for those in the normal range, but appear also to be for slowing progress, and for ensuring people stay within siloes and divisions, to perform more specialized work only. 

> “I learned this as a child, a teen, again as a young adult, and again I must pay to certify to this, vaguely, over perhaps a decade as a university student, without any consumer controls?”

Such experiences as not being able to express oneself as oneself in a mode appropriate for accelerated learning, can lead gradually to a feeling of unfulfillment and the feeling that the world has not situated its institutions or its organizations for such people. Instead they were made for and by others and one must simply find a way to enjoy one's experience.

### <a name="two-pathways-in-life-and-the-desire-to-blend-them">Two Pathways in Life, And the Desire to Blend Them</a>

The primary pathway decision faced by those are highly intelligent appears to be the following, which is how I experienced it:
1. Is it worth the time and frustration to attain organizational success, given I do not value it all that much?
1. Is it worth the time and risks to pursue a high income, for the leisure attained, or is it more valuable to choose a modest income, easily achieved, and commit?
1. How can I conserve energy for thinking about what I would like to think about, and for doing what I would like to do?

On all three points above, most will grapple, and perhaps not find a long-term solution. People have a hard time choosing to save over having material comforts for long periods of time. Some have a lot of trouble identifying what they care about as far as their use of minds and time; whereas, some highly intelligent people will choose the easiest of jobs to automate their performance, freeing their mind completely for their own thoughts, which might have nothing at all to do with work, while others observing their behavior, wonder why they might not opt for materials and organizational success? These people have not been able to disentangle that what one values doing with one’s mind is separate from pleasing others socially, and gaining materials that others find attractive.

Appropriate employment for the talented and especially gifted seems to be a greater rarity than being especially talented or gifted, and realizing this early, many have to make choices to settle into jobs and professions that simply do not provide stimulation and opportunities that might be entirely satisfying. It is an odd thing though, to think that organizations should have occupations fulfilling such a need. Employment is not for those being employed, except for in rare circumstances. Occupations, instead, fulfill market opportunities, closely related to desired extraction by a business owner. A business owner is aware of some opportunity for earning money, and creates an organizational structure, most often starting with himself/herself, which effectively gains money on their effort. Seeing more market opportunity, and understanding the desirability of having leisure time, the owners hire employees that they pay less for similar efforts. Organizations grow indefinitely on this pyramid pathway, with the ownership amassing wealth obtained from increasing market opportunity and an increase of employees who are paid less than their actual value. This discrepancy in value, is what incentivizes the ownership to continue to grow their business, and to improve their business, likely with much fewer hours of contribution, but greater contribution using mental contributions. 

Business owners attain much of what an intelligent person wants for themselves, and likely the business owner is intelligent, but most often not as intelligent as someone in the highest ranges. People outside the highest ranges recognize the intelligence of business owners, particularly owners of businesses that are extremely desirable and high earning, and identify business success with intelligence. However, this is a misidentification. Those who are well positioned with modest intelligence are in a better position, it appears, for this type of success, than those in the highest ranges, who are interested in things like artistic creation, intellectual creations, and simply thinking about things that are not so mundane as business.

It is obvious too, however, that those in the highest ranges would benefit from being business owners, or being employees at the very top of the business, if the business is so well developed, that a special intelligentsia is needed for maintaining it. This occurs in organizations like large software companies, scientific companies, and organizations of government, like NASA. Similar demands, exist, certainly for military organizations, like the Air Force and other, that recruit specifically for gifted people. However, these people who become employed do not necessarily control the range or extent of their tasks, and even at the top, there may be an expectation of much specialization. So the highest range individual, who wants freedom of mind to connect diverse topics, finds themselves someone well rewarded with respect to income, and yet give up energy and hours to devote themselves to still trivial specialized tasks. From outside, these highly intelligent people may appear quite well off, when in reality they are understimulated and still have few opportunities for maximizing potential. For this reason, these roles can be filled by those who are intelligent but are still not of the very highest intelligence, and these more moderately intelligent people might be more completely fulfilled. The most intelligent would benefit most greatly from the freedoms of being the owners of the business, where wealth might enable them to go beyond their own business to a range of activities that permit higher generality, higher interdisciplinarian, and the like, or simply time to pursue activities that free the mind. 

It appears that these business ownership opportunities are still not for all those who are highly intelligent, and appears somewhat uninteresting. There is also competition with those who might already have wealth, might already inherit the businesses, might already be in a position of understanding very closely the market opportunities even if one is highly intelligent, one does not necessarily have market feel and experience, and incentive to succeed when there is a market opportunity, which might be invisible except for those who are involved. Involvement then can provide better opportunity than raw intelligence.

The highly intelligent then, opt for pursuing whatever is satisfying to their own minds, and have to gauge the risks associated with trying to find a career that produces income, sacrificing time and energy, that could be used for thinking freely instead.

I personally prefer one of two types of employment:

1. Doing something that is so easy that it requires no thinking, but is in a healthful environment; or
1. Doing something that is so complicated nobody else can do it, that is rewarding in income. Such a job is a rarity, and I was fortunate to find myself given opportunities after expending much time, at much risk, just seeing if such opportunities would ever come into existence.

At present, I run my own organization of one, as a Consultant guiding large organizations. I was able to build such a company, only after having attained Chief Architect at Adobe Systems, and Solutions Consultant, a role similar to that performed by Edward Snowden. One might think, being Chief Architect would be satisfying, and it was for a period, because I could work on tasks that were very high complexity. However, there was also the reality of limitations of colleagues and employees that could not necessarily execute in complex ways, if not for their own limitations (there were many talented colleagues), for inability to organize projects effectively. I found myself still unable to retain my intellectual property as well, and unable to eradicate manipulative tendencies of managers who wanted to shift roles, and do so without increasing income more than what was scheduled. Meaning my talents, which were obvious to all, could not create rewards in any way like at a business. So I left this job and discovered, that in business I had a much better level of control of my income, which was higher, and ownership of my productions.

Even in my own business, the opportunities from clients dictate the complexity of what I’m doing. However, I can advance my business in any way I like as I perform this work, alongside, owning all my own contributions. If I wanted to work less I could work less. I could travel as desired. I ended up getting all that I wanted very precisely, exactly obtaining what I set out to obtain. However, I did not know that it would turn out this way, and many fortuitous circumstances made it possible. Having had a very good and elevate role at this software company enabled me to culminate my career as far as titles are concerned, and my subject matter expertise was desired by those in my network I already knew, and companies who had needs from an elevated consultant. 
So I am of the few who were able to combine personal mental goals with social-organizational, academic, and income advancement goals, that are sometimes quite opposite to one’s interests, sacrificing time and energy, with uncertain results. I recognize that my mental needs, are quite unlike many if all colleagues I have ever had, who seem more settled and less restless in their roles, even when they change little, because they seem to have a suitable level of complexity still, even in specialization, and an income level that, under social-comparison, appears good to themselves and those who might pay attention. They are able to gain material benefits that they think are enough for their personal goals, and stay in their roles for very long periods of time.

This is not satisfying to someone like myself, who needs to combine things further, have greater complexity, and greater control over income, locale, etc… What I wanted I communicated to a manager once, who upon reading my desires, must have felt quite powerless to support me. I wanted greater “Idea execution” potential. I’m chronically having ideas that nobody finds interesting, that have high value, and high interdisciplinarian. They are general and abstract, and hard to communicate, and require money to bring to fruition. These goals relate to personal interests, that I’ve had since I was a teenager; goals I would have sacrificed my career for, if I could have achieved them otherwise.

I wanted:

1. Time and energy to have important ideas and to be able to write about those ideas.
1. Later I wanted resources, especially monetary resources, and ownership of my own IP, to record those ideas into actual writing, and software.
1. Later I wanted those ideas to connect to business objectives supporting a range of industries, and to be able to deploy those ideas at those business and industries, in an organization changing way, supporting people and their goals.
1. I wanted to connect these writings with sufficient accomplishments to create authority, and was able to do so in connecting it to my lofty titles I’ve had in doing business with customers, and academically, after many challenges, finally obtaining a number of degrees, and gaining admission at Harvard University, a well-respected organization.

Highly intelligent people want to be able to communicate those thoughts they have that seem to be greatly valuable. As a teenager I was having many ideas I thought could change the world for the better. At that time, I knew there was a very long path ahead for having any credibility that would cause a readership to have any interest at all. I knew even my own family would not read my writings, and my friends would not either. If they would not ready my writing, who would? Who would care to read anything I had to think about?

These are other reasons why I felt the need to have organizational and academic attainments. They had to be enough to create attention or authority. Accomplishments in the High Intelligence societies was a completely unexpected phenomena, but that occurred along the way too, after reconfirming my intelligence once again, working as a software architect at the Food Network (more precisely, Scripps Networks, whose television channels were later taken on by Discovery, including HGTV, Travel Channel, etc… other businesses I also supported). While performing a complex role, I thought to myself, “Why have I not joined Mensa already?” Impressed at my seeming ability to do my job at an increasingly challenging level, at a pace that seemed to exceed colleagues, who I already respected for their abilities, I thought to confirm what I learned in youth. I confirmed again my abilities and joined Mensa, and began interacting there and in a number of other groups. While simply socializing, while doing my work in software, and in academia, I attained a level of respect, and attention, and many personal relationships, which further developed some notoriety in the High IQ societies. Now I’m quite well recognized in the High IQ community, and inso doing, developed at least some interested readership. 

Today I have potential for a healthy writing career, apart from writing I do in my work for various organizations in a number of industries (making it more challenging, and more interesting, having very different customers with different needs, in different places, even international locations, like New Zealand). I have the authority requisite, and some niche readership, and a blog with underlying technology I own, having written the software from scratch and from various pieces freely available (which is normal in creating software products), for artistic and communication satisfaction.

These productions feed my business value as well, so I was able to connect the value of my personal writings, and underlying software, to the creations of large organizations. For example, I have recently designed the technology for AbbVie, Inc’s international website, which was deployed without issue, and connected my ideas shared with that organization, with ideas developed in my personal life and in my business.

There is an odd synthesis to my career, which is satisfying beyond what I thought possible, and it appears to be precisely what would be rewarding to others in the very highest ranges of intelligence. In fact, communicating with many of them, I become aware of their journey’s, which do resemble my own. I very much wish that many who are looking for the same fulfillment are able to find it. While I find myself admiring the person who would eschew organizational attainment for purely mental attainment, and productions outside of existing organizational structures, and academia, I hope they are able to have income attainment and experiences that are able to broaden their communication potential. Because that is what they want—they want to be able to share what is in their minds, that they might be unable to share.

I believe the level of preparation required for someone in the very high range of intelligence to share what they would like to share from their minds, to be quite extraordinary. There is no doubt to me that many others in the community would like to have the organizational, academic, and software/writing IP ownership that I have, relating to my writings. Without having gone through decades of preparations, which may not be fortuitous, I do think smaller outlets at communicating to a perhaps receptive audience is still very desirable. Articles like that from Grady Towers, and Hank Pfeffer, discussed earlier, are unlikely to have a wide readership, or interest, even being shared through channels like Mega and Prometheus. However, they can connect with audiences who can benefit directly, and I have some debt to their works. 

In the high intelligence society journals, works seems to have a lack of academic developments that would dissuade some readers from having a prolonged interest, and this again is part of what I mean about the extraordinary requirements of sharing one’s mind, at this level. One seems to need to exceed what can be produced academically, somehow. This can be achieved, with some notice, if the writing has an informality that is greatly offset by the power of what is stated. Some writers seem to be able to pull this off, but it may go unnoticed by those who might not be able to discern, since the mind-matching I mentioned is required for appraising significance more fully. What they would like to say is quite remarkable, and they communicate extremely effectively and powerfully. But they lack very definitely in having the academic and career undergrowth, that would seem to provide more formal authority to their writings, and I believe they would want this for themselves, if they could have it. But alas, academic life is slow and torturous, and their minds being too fast, cannot sometimes take the frustrations associated. I experienced this myself and many times needed breaks in college, for becoming disillusioned in the supposed objectives of higher education, easily obtained independently, but without papers.

There is a concept I became acquainted with somewhat recently, stated to be ikigai, and trusting that’s real Japanese, relay it here to the reader. This word relates to the fulfillment of joining interests in such a way that time is spent doing things that seem more holistic. Work, talent, interest, and gainful employment are related to one another. Such a term might lead the reader there is no special interest connecting, then, to high giftedness, but that is not the case. Rather, the size of the effort at synthesizing diverse talents and interests seems to be at stake. “How do I combine all my talents into one and into gainful employment”, considering Hank Pfeffer’s article, seems a somewhat silly pursuit. This is why I think certain forms of employment, again, seem like they are not appropriate to certain people. “Will this organization create ikigai from all my interests?” appears the absurdist of questions, particularly given the objectives of owners. People like myself worked in youth believing it to be impossible to make ikigai occur in a satisfying way. “It is impossible and so I will give up on this” appears a result of the Terman study for some. I believe it to be very challenging and wonder if perhaps there is a greater ikigai for me in the future, while at the same time, I recognize what I have is something quite out of the ordinary, and I am contented for what I have at the moment, even if it could be better in some ways. I admit it is hard to think it could be better, unless great riches are in my future.

(Perhaps remove the section below)

I think many of the highly intelligent understand this issue early, and opt for choosing what appears the lowest risk pathway, for preserving energy for doing what one considers to be most valuable.
In my life, having been influenced greatly by the works of various philosophers, who could only make their achievements having very abundant leisure time, I chose to pursue the very greatest income I could attain, while simultaneously devaluing income as having only secondary value. I had an interest in being a hermit on one hand, living alone and in nature, with few needs, and a desire to live in an urban environment, spending freely to enjoy the benefits of restaurants, not cooking, and having a nice apartment cared for by a landlord, so I had nearly no concerns whatsoever in doing mundane tasks. I value doing things with my hands in nature, and I value the benefits of having no needs for doing housework and mechanical tasks, so that I can focus exclusively on mental-academic pursuits, like reading and writing. I noticed though, that one can have all that one values if one has money. Ideally, one can have it without too much toil and self-sacrifice, and those who were born into wealth know the value of having had to do nothing at all to obtain it. Suddenly they have leisure to do anything and everything they want that they value perhaps intrinsically. The high intellect does benefit from being born into wealth, and many famous philosophers and scientists did not need to work incredibly hard to amass a savings providing security.

I was not born into such a scenario and knew, whatever success I might have in organizations, and success in income attainment, or business, would come primarily from myself, although I did have parents who were financially supportive as I was growing to be an independent adult. I would never be able to have a significant savings exclusively coming from my family, and I assumed there would never be an inheritance to wait for, which is something I personally detested as well. My parents would deplete their resources in their interests, and I would have no ongoing connection to their financial wellbeing. 

So in my early 20’s I strove for financial independence, in a context that was not incredibly favorable.

It was especially unfavorable for a period due to my choice to drop out of High School. I experienced the improbability of advancing in a job I had during the period of not being in school, making 6 dollars an hour, even after being promoted, and recognized that organizational success in academics, and in work, might be the only way I could gain a significant income.

How easy or accessible is it to earn a high income, in my case? Is this something I value, and want to pursue, to advance my own interests, or are my interests incompatible with such a life? Should I choose a more modest way of living, and do what brings value, giving my worldview, or should I find a way to secure an easier life with surplus money and material resources, to give myself more leisure time for my pursuits.

I think there is a real dichotomous divide here, and that most people have to make decisions about this in order to secure their well-being at all stages of their lives.

One difference that appears to exist, is the degree of consideration made about this question early in life, versus later. Some appear to drift along, moving from one moment to the next, as if this were not a real question. Some will struggle through business without having a real aptitude for earning. Some will not make a choice between material interests in consumption, and saving funds, and will remain in debt, wanting both and never reconciling desires.

I think those in the very high IQ ranges are more likely to reconcile material interests with what seems to be of genuine value, and make calculations as to the reasonability of attaining a special degree of organizational or financial social success, and high income. Some eschew organizational and financial attainment early, seeing its transitory social value, and seeing the time requirements for building wealth, and simply choose a path that will never produce the awe that one might expect from an exceptional mind that finds fame. These are highly intelligent people who recognize real futility early. “Even if I attain wealth, I know the following will occur and I will be unsatisfied.”

Then there is another segment, who recognizes this, and yet sees a very difficult path ahead not pursuing high income. How will I ever write what I wish to write without the leisure time and energy to do so? How can I spend my time doing mundane work, depleting my energy, only to find at the completion of their workdays, they are having less and less energy, over time, to do anything felt to be valuable.


### <a name="the-value-of-the-mensa-membership-from-my-perspective">The Value of the Mensa Membership from My Perspective</a>

*Relating to the question: What does a Mensa International membership mean to you?*

There was a quote that I’ll paraphrase from memory, from an African American Astronaut who is a Member of Mensa, who was asked the same question:

“Being a member of Mensa means, to me, that I no longer have to think or talk about how smart I am.”

I have the same view, perhaps for being exposed to his, and for this reason I chose to become a Life Member. It is done and I no longer need to dwell further on this topic.

The second extremely meaningful thing to me about Mensa, and other societies, is the access to extraordinary people, who are not necessarily extraordinary for having attained ephemeral social successes. These are people who one yearns to meet for the sort of mind-matching and communication mentioned above.

I’ve met valuable people all over, and have come to meet exceptional people quite naturally in my demanding career. But one can simply meet people who are exceptional by joining Mensa. I regret that there is a barrier to entry, to get into this group, to talk to certain people, but it is a barrier that is necessary, even if it is arbitrary. 

I suggest to the reader who might be obstructed from admission (there are people who definitely belong who simply have not gained the paper test scores making it possible to enter), to focus on academic experiences and join groups interested and focused on specific sciences, arts, and experiences, because as soon as you are in these environments, you witness the results of intelligence in beautiful ways, and attention is on quality. When one visits a museum and experiences people interested in museums, quality is apparent. Quality is not always apparent in the high IQ community, and one has to be long exposed to find exceptional people, or exceptional moments, even there, with the exception of meetings in person, which were more consistently rewarding. I mention this to the reader, because genuinely, one finds the same qualities one is hoping for on both pathways, and people are appearing in these groups when they are not appearing in the high IQ societies.

It’s quite a nice experience to witness people’s productions and strengths without having any idea how they would perform being tested, and oftentimes one has no care or concern at all, being quite pleased with the diverse strengths one is witnessing. I think this offers an answer too, about the rewards of tangible accomplishments, over and above what a test score might indicate (although again, that is very important for some people in unexpected ways too).

### <a name="learning-more-about-intelligent-people-and-how-they-are-measured-and-intelligence-itself">Learning More About Intelligent People, and How they are Measured, and Intelligence Itself</a>

*Relating to the question: How can individuals read more on matters of IQ, societies, intelligence, and the like, outside of the references in the article?*

I commented in the article cited by Mr. Jacobsen that an effective method for gaining an understanding of highly intelligent people is watching them speak and communicate, and that it would be especially interesting to move away from watching figures who are well known, to view those who are not well-known. Fame is unrelated to the expression of people who are extremely intelligent, and very few attain any sort of fame, or interest from others who are unlike them. I suggested in my brief blog post that one good approach would be to watch YouTube videos. Presumably mostly famous people are available for viewing on YouTube, and so here I offer an alternative: it may be possible to attend High IQ conferences as a journalist or interested outsider, and one may thereby gain opportunities for talking with incredibly intelligent people, gathered all together. Rather than pursuing individuals for interviews or their time discussing topics of mutual interest, it may be helpful to find them all in one place, gathering for their annual meetups and so forth. People in this community are welcoming, for the most part, of people outside of the community, because of course, their loving spouses and family members cannot be expected to fall in the same IQ range. Thus they will bring family members to events, and so not only will you find opportunities for talking with very smart people, you will have chances for talking with their significant others, and family members, who might have very interesting things to say about their highly intelligent family member. These people would be pleasant company too, creating a good and comfortable environment if one is wanting to know more but is not a member of the societies themselves. 

This would give some ideas about how people in the societies are in person, but even still, quite a lot is not revealed about who highly intelligent people are, and how they perform under demanding circumstances, like those conditions created by proctored IQ testing.

I took my first IQ test as a young child and remember it very well. The reader, if schooled in a district that tests for giftedness, might have some recollections of these early tests too, and perhaps what they enjoyed or disliked about those tests. I think it likely that a very large population of people have a good understanding already of IQ and what IQ testing consists of, and some idea about range, and aptitudes. I recall vividly my experience doing specific tests around manipulating triangles and other shapes to construct larger shapes, with a psychometrician or psychologist, in my elementary school, in a private room. I also recall having to estimate the number of blocks that were within larger configurations of blocks at different orientations. I recall these tests, I believe, because I was quite good at them. Taking IQ tests in my thirties, many years later, I excelled at these same tests again, obtaining ceiling scores. I can obtain ceiling scores on other tests too, and in general, I do not have a fearful relationship with intelligence testing or intelligence as a result. I would suggest that if a reader has some fear around IQ tests, it may relate to some recollection at having a difficult time on IQ tests, which are intended to be difficult, and are for most of the population. This experience may typify test taking recollections.

In order to get additional confirmation about one’s suspected IQ range, it may be useful to again take proctored examinations as an adult. One could take the Mensa test and get a feel for range, but I would more seriously suggest taking a proctored examination with a psychologist. These can be somewhat costly, but they give the in person experience of test selection by the psychologist (you can take these tests more than once, after a period of some years elapse, and they would not be precisely the same test, although the tests would feel quite similar). Professional, hand-written score reports are provided by the psychologist too, and these are quite nice to include as part of one’s historical documents and autobiography. However, while making these suggestions, I do have some reservations, thinking the reader probably really does already have a good idea of range, and probably, if there isn’t a specific personal reason to get confirmation, the primary reason for taking a test would have to be research on intelligence, or out of some interest in psychology, psychometrics and the like. Since the question above was put forth without any indication about personal self-interest in obtaining confirming scores, I suggest this in-person test taking as a very good method for gaining a better understanding of intelligence as a part of research interests.


When I was being trained to become a Psychologist in my University Studies, I also obtained text books that provided a very good historical context for the development of IQ tests, and also a good foundation about the validity of the tests, and yet again, information about how they are proctored and performed by licensed psychologists who are able to obtain the published tests, and instructions for scoring. If one gets far enough along in studies of Psychology, one can obtain the tests themselves. I did not pursue this, but through the combination of reading on how tests are administered, and taking the tests with Psychologists who shared more information, I gained a very complete understanding. But beyond this, it is possible to “get the keys to the tests” and administer the Stanford Binet and other tests to those who want to know more. This is a very valuable pursuit, because it can reveal cognitive impairments in children, and also reveal high giftedness in those who will need special education. When I obtained my tests as an adult, it appeared that the primary customers of psychologists providing the tests were to confirm definite strengths and weaknesses in children who were already known to parents and adults to have special difficulties or special strengths. There seemed to be less of an interest in parents with kids who seemed to be well balanced and have normal functioning. Functioning in the normal range there seems to be less of a need for special attention, and therefore perhaps less motivation to take costly tests with a psychologist, after having already been tested by a psychologist, perhaps for free, in the public or private education systems.

If one wants to know more, one can reach out to me as well, since I have considerable experience, all life long, with the experience of being gifted in the high range, of having training to become a Psychologist within this personal context, of having had a number of tests longitudinally over my lifespan, and of having experience with others in person, and in forums, who are extremely highly intelligent, in the very highest ranges of intelligence. One can reach me at the contact information below. I would be enthusiastic to hear from readers interested, whoever they might be, so long as they are kind and well-intentioned:



<a name="concluding-response"></a>

### Concluding Response

Those topics I find most interesting for further development might be, firstly, coming to a defined process that would allow people for a method for identifying risky people, which they could self-train or be trained on, and secondly, coming to an even more clear understanding of the role of conversation in identifying the most gifted, and who must be in the conversation for that process to have a better feel for identifying the level of giftedness that the person has, in a rough way, not to pretend to know the intelligence of the person specifically, but to know they are in the range they claim very likely, and are not charlatains, or are not of risk.

## Interview Questions

- ***Questions 1 and 2.*** You wrote an interesting article entitled "How Do People With IQs Over 180 Act and Think?" (Cavanaugh, 2018). You bring forward individuals like Richard Feynman, Bertrand Russell, Paul Cooijmans, Grady Towers, and societies such as the Mega Society, the Giga Society, and Mensa International. By and large, these are well-known within the high-IQ communities, of which I sit out in the Oort Cloud with a telescope making notes enjoying the show and sending occasional correspondence for interviews with members of these communities. I am not a formal member of these communities. I have contributed to publications or had positions for which I’m grateful, but no formal legitimate memberships because of no formal test to determine the merit of the matter or deep abiding interest at that level, as some societies do not require test scores, permit second test scores, or utilize, widely, alternative tests with varying degrees of legitimacy in the measurement of the psychological construct of g, general intelligence. As far as I know, those societies with strict mainstream intelligence test requirements are Mensa International and the Triple Nine Society, especially with Mensa International having formal testing sites online or, pre-coronavirus, invigilation stations all over the world. These are important to consider, internationally, even sophisticated frauds exist in the high-IQ communities with a grotesque example in the multi-level marketer (scammer), human trafficker, and cult leader Keith Raniere with the organization NXIVM where he was known as "Vanguard." To a more on-point tune and as a point of clarification to start us off here today, with Feynman’s declared IQ of 126 (no S.D. mentioned), as stated in the article, what is the factual status of Feynman’s declared IQ in contrast to professional commentary or considerations of his mathematical abilities?
- ***Question 3.*** Do you have any particularly favourite articles from Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society?
- ***Question 4.*** What was the eventual outcome or the larger conclusions from the Terman Study?
- ***Question 5.*** What seem like the common reasons for the exceptionally intelligent and profoundly intelligent finding inappropriate employment or remaining unemployed/underemployed?
- ***Quesiton 6.*** The most legitimate intelligence test scores tend to come from comprehensive tests with money and research dumped at them, e.g., the SB and the WAIS. Yet, their ranges are fairly tight around 40/45 to 160/155 on S.D. 15. Some statistical, psychometric techniques, e.g., Rasch-equated, have been employed by individual experimental psychologists, e.g., Dr. Xavier Jouve, to extrapolate for claimed scores at 175 S.D. 15, for example. Alternative tests made by independent test constructors are interesting and vary in quality, though have a far larger quantity. In the article, bluntly, you state, “140,150,160,170,180 are the numbers immediately grasped by liars and exaggerators.” When using alternative tests, fake names or pseudonyms, or more than the first test attempt to claim a score at 140, 150, 160, 170, and 180, what are first thoughts coming to mind to you?
- ***Question 7.*** How can individuals protect themselves from scammers?
- ***Question 8.*** Why should individuals stick to professional achievements positive for individual authentic self-esteem and the common good rather than test score?
- ***Question 9.*** What does a Mensa International membership mean to you?
- ***Question 10.*** How can individuals read more on matters of IQ, societies, intelligence, and the like, outside of the references in the article?

## <a name="appendix">Appendix</a>

### Original Request from Scott Jacobsen



### Response from Mattanaw



## <a name="references">References</a>

1. Mattanaw. (2023). *Bibliography, Citing and Referring*. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. http://www.mattanaw.com/bibliography-citing-and-referring.html#references-to-my-work

2. Mattanaw. (2022). *Bio and Stats*. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. http://www.mattanaw.com/bio-and-stats.html

3. Mattanaw. (2022). *Cults*. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. http://www.mattanaw.com/cults.html

4. Cavanaugh, C. (2018). *How Do People With IQs Over 180 Act and Think? Book and Journal of Mattanaw*. http://www.mattanaw.com/how-do-people-with-iqs-over-180-act-and-think.html

5. Mattanaw. (2021). *The Significance of Ideas and Creativity*. http://www.mattanaw.com/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.htm?fbclid=IwAR2GhTeEVpiCxCTcTI3dOaPQdEFds0l3-t0ZsPS8lPTCl0jRgmfWD3VIuFM#the-significance-of-ideas-and-creativity

6. Mattanaw. (2023). *My History of Writing in the High Intelligence Community*. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. http://www.mattanaw.com/thoughtstream.html#my-history-of-writings-in-the-high-intelligence-communit

7. Mattanaw. (2023). *A comment in the HighIQ community regarding claims that certain rarities are really not so rare*. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. 

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

[Contents](#contents)
[Main Contents](index.html#main-contents)
