Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

Mar 8, 2020, 1:54 PM No I don’t pay attention. Langan crosses the border into woo woo. I’ve addressed his work elsewhere. I’ve commented there a few times. But, like I said, over 145 it is not clear that there is any substantial benefit without worse side effects, except in the purely physical or mathematical disciplines where intuition no longer can bias a decision across the border from true (consistent) into meaningful, preferable, or good (desirable). Over 130 the only difference is how long you have to work to get it, and how innovative you might be. Over 145 we see some benefit in mathematics and the hard sciences dependent upon mathematics. Over 160 still isn’t testable in any sense of the word, and all value I’ve seen is merely verbal, with whacky factor (think chomsky) increasing rapidly. In general it is almost impossible to communicate across two standard deviations (30pts). I can tell when people have a higher iq than I do by their verbal facility on one side or the patterns they identify and work with on the other. I know my weakness and always have, and it’s short term memory, which is why I do better at pattern recognition and iterative synthesis than chess and mathematics. Conversely, I will see a pattern and I will discover its cause, no matter what information I look at. I didn’t go into physics because I once I understood the wave particle duality in high school I understood it was a problem only money could solve. I didn’t go into math because I saw it as puzzles not problems and autistics need to be cautious about getting addicted to puzzles. I went into technology because I thought it would be possible to produce artificial intelligence. By the early 80’s I realized it was a hardware problem and required vast investment to make progress although the ideas I formed during that time are still not used anywhere other than my work in the grammars and ethics within P-Law. I used the market opportunity to make money at tech, and then turned my attention to economics and politics which did not require massive capital investment – just hard work and time. When I could retire early to work on the problem full time I did. My only concern at this point is that my age is increasing faster than I am completing the project. In retrospect I had to invent P in order to talk to normal people. Which is why so many other men like me are attracted to it. But without something like P, if you’re not neurotypical, you are somewhat a prisoner in your own head, and limited by that prison to what you can influence. I was. I’m not. but I also have more ‘fight’ than any ten other men. Which is what you need to make it as an entrepreneur.

Mar 8, 2020, 1:54 PM No I don’t pay attention. Langan crosses the border into woo woo. I’ve addressed his work elsewhere. I’ve commented there a few times. But, like I said, over 145 it is not clear that there is any substantial benefit without worse side effects, except in the purely physical or mathematical disciplines where intuition no longer can bias a decision across the border from true (consistent) into meaningful, preferable, or good (desirable). Over 130 the only difference is how long you have to work to get it, and how innovative you might be. Over 145 we see some benefit in mathematics and the hard sciences dependent upon mathematics. Over 160 still isn’t testable in any sense of the word, and all value I’ve seen is merely verbal, with whacky factor (think chomsky) increasing rapidly. In general it is almost impossible to communicate across two standard deviations (30pts). I can tell when people have a higher iq than I do by their verbal facility on one side or the patterns they identify and work with on the other. I know my weakness and always have, and it’s short term memory, which is why I do better at pattern recognition and iterative synthesis than chess and mathematics. Conversely, I will see a pattern and I will discover its cause, no matter what information I look at. I didn’t go into physics because I once I understood the wave particle duality in high school I understood it was a problem only money could solve. I didn’t go into math because I saw it as puzzles not problems and autistics need to be cautious about getting addicted to puzzles. I went into technology because I thought it would be possible to produce artificial intelligence. By the early 80’s I realized it was a hardware problem and required vast investment to make progress although the ideas I formed during that time are still not used anywhere other than my work in the grammars and ethics within P-Law. I used the market opportunity to make money at tech, and then turned my attention to economics and politics which did not require massive capital investment – just hard work and time. When I could retire early to work on the problem full time I did. My only concern at this point is that my age is increasing faster than I am completing the project. In retrospect I had to invent P in order to talk to normal people. Which is why so many other men like me are attracted to it. But without something like P, if you’re not neurotypical, you are somewhat a prisoner in your own head, and limited by that prison to what you can influence. I was. I’m not. but I also have more ‘fight’ than any ten other men. Which is what you need to make it as an entrepreneur.