# Interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen of the In-sight Journal

## Outliers and Outsiders

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?

Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh (Mattanaw):

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. Having had the degree of confirmation that I've received, I have a somewhat hard time imaginging what the life of a charlatan must be like.

Impressive deceased individuals leaving evidence of profound realizations and productive eminence do not leave me with questions about their intelligence, although estimations about their scores appear to be frivolous fabrications. While confirmed writings and diagrams may at some time be adequate for AI or forensic intelligence measuring systems to provide scores, and compare them with living producers, I believe existing numbers for notable figures were invented and are untrustworthy.

Recently I had in my hands works from Leonardo Da Vinci on Human Anatomy, and while impressed, I see no reason to fabricate any particular score for his intelligence. To overstate his intelligence would not honor his history as people think that it would, as much as accurate fact revealing who he was, with that same precision and observation he paid to his own subject matter. Mentioning his name even in this context bothers me, but wanting some name from greater antiquity, I chose his, because it should be clear, to anyone thinking of that distance in time from the Stanford Binet, that there is no way to estimate his intelligence with a number, until a test is designed specific to that purpose, using what a person creates as an input, lacking the person.


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

Cavanaugh (Mattanaw):

I'm fond of two articles in particular, each are from Grady Towers, one being _______, and the other being ________, both discovered not after any longstanding reading of Noesis, but coincidence and brief visitation. Upon reading articles such as his I know I found another who talks to me and instantly relates like few others I've known.


Jacobsen: What was the eventual outcome or the larger conclusions from the Terman Study?

Cavanaugh (Mattanaw):

Being a trained psychologist I'm aware of the Terman study, but am not a researcher who can claim to have a detailed understanding of the results.



Jacobsen: What seem like the common reasons for the exceptionally intelligent and profoundly intelligent finding inappropriate employment or remaining unemployed/underemployed?

Cavanaugh (Mattanaw):



Jacobsen: 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?

[Edited out "Fake names or pseudonyms", as apparently out of place in the question sentence. I would suggest rephrasing and perhaps including an alternative sentence if it is possible I may have removed a relevant idea")

Cavanaugh (Mattanaw):

As stated above, my intelligence was validly estimated in early childhood, and a number of times into adulthood, using trusted measures you listed in your question, all proctored. Combining this with my experience in psychology, I put little to no value on independently created tests. Not long ago, I answered a question deemed "impossible" in the book Outliers, which was a matrix reasoning question, easily and with little effort. I also maximized the WAIS-IV on the same measure. Given this, I might be lead to believe my IQ range is in the 200s, but I do not in fact place trust in independently created measures of intelligence and therefore discredit a definite conclusion related to correctly answering this question. Being well tested, and somewhat satisfied with my results, despite the conclusion that I cannot know my IQ, I wonder at others who would be willing to accept alternative tests and relay their scores as their true and factual IQ scores.

In my experience, those who have not been tested, who wish to pretend an IQ score, simply choose round numbers. This is the original basis for believing that people are quick to choose certain figures to misrepresent their scores, although I have not taken any statistical approach to confirm that expectation. Nevertheless, I believe the reader will be aware of people who have claimed, say 160 as their IQ score, without having done any official testing or without having any legitimate history of giftedness in any school system (which is unavailable, certainly), or any membership in an IQ society, or any result to use as evidence.


Jacobsen: How can individuals protect themselves from scammers?

Cavanaugh (Mattanaw):

This question is unusually difficult to answer as it connects to a very basic question of trust. It matters greatly if the person who wishes to be protected is in a high intelligence group, or is not. 

I will begin by answering under the assumption that the person to be protected is already highly intelligent, but has recognized some indications that a particular person is not who they claim to be.

In all my interactions in the societies there appear to be only a handful to key red-flags that indicate I'm speaking with a potential fake:

* Lack of insight as to significance.
* Lack of understanding of relevance.
* Lack of native understanding of logic in natural language.
* Lack of Interdisciplinary knowledge. I.e. evidence of a long history of non-curiosity.

While I do not want to disparage those who may not fall into the category of highly intelligent, I want to be helpful to those researchers who may themselves believe to be not as intelligent, or those supporting people in an otherwise vulnerable position of lesser intelligence.

Someone who is in this position is better off seeking expertise than intelligence.


Jacobsen: Why should individuals stick to professional achievements positive for individual authentic self-esteem and the common good rather than test score?

Cavanaugh (Mattanaw):

Although I was identified as highly gifted as a child, and routinely connected with Johns Hopkins University to become active in their programs, my parents opted to keep me uninvolved. I progressed through childhood and my teenage years with recollections and reminders of my giftedness, but without any support to be generateive as a student or to become a productive professional.

After much difficulty, I did become very successful, but I do recognize that some of my success was the result of fortuitous opportunities, that do not exist for everyone.

Having had no confirmation in youth from adults, or my parents, I had a need for confirmation of my native abilities apart from my success in a number of areas of my life.

I'm a pilot, I attained multiple degrees, became Chief Architect at Adobe Systems, became a pilot, spent a considerable amount of time journaling and book writing, read many books, enrolled in Harvard University, and so on and so forth.

However having my intelligence reconfirmed, as an adult, with the WAIS-IV and SB-V was very important, because my parents paid such little attention to my intelligence scores in school, and my giftedness, that despite my obvious self-knowledge of differentiation, I needed something to tell me conclusively what I believed was certainly true. I needed new paperwork in my hands. Having comet to understand psychometric testing, I wanted to take the tests myself. And after seeing that indeed I am immeasurable and certainly exceptionally gifted, and finally joining Mensa and other groups including the special interest group for the exceptionally and profoundly gifted, ...





Jacobsen: What does a Mensa International membership mean to you?

Cavanaugh (Mattanaw):





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

Cavanaugh (Mattanaw):







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

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