FeedBrains And Brawn — Chris Langan Has It All
Written by BignFuzzy on March 16, 2008 – 4:55 amA thickly muscled bear of a man, Chris Langan is a blue collar bouncer in a Long Island night club.
He’s also possibly the smartest man in America. With an IQ around 195 Chris has developed a theory called “Cognitive – Theoretic Model of the Universe.” All that brawn and intellect rolled into one. A guy could get intimidated… or infatuated!
Whew! All that binary logic brings out the philosophy bear in us!
By bearmythology on Mar 16, 2008 7:08:03 AM | Reply
Not to bash on Mr. Langan, but there were a few things he had said in the videos that made me feel that he’s quite an egotistical man. I’m not sure. He just came off really cocky and sanctimonious. For instance, he talked about his opinion concerning head size and how it influenced intelligence: the bigger it was, the smarter the creature. I don’t know. For a genius, how could he make such an ignorant statement? Sure he prefaced it with “in my opinion,” (a copout, imo, lol) but, really, it felt like he said this to simply focus on his “defective” bigger head and how smart he was because of it.
Other than that, his writing on CTMU has given me quite a headache. Fortunately, he is so woofy and his voice so soothing that I could stare and listen to him for a long time, despite of (or probably because of) my personal feelings about him otherwise.
By BignFuzzy on Mar 16, 2008 1:48:25 PM | Reply
Hi Mr. Bearmythology,
Yes, I can see where you would see him as egotistical. I believe that he has some incredible insights. IMO, it’s all filtered through his personality though that was formed from a domineering father that he still might subconsciously be trying to please.
He’s still a hot man though!
By Jim on Jul 19, 2008 1:09:55 PM | Reply
I look at his comments as so out in a world that made so much sense if you will listen and not watch the interview. If you never saw this person you would think omg he makes so much sense in his mind not yours. His is so smart but could be a little socially inept.
By angelus177 on Oct 26, 2008 1:22:30 PM | Reply
I found his rant to be kind of, for lack of a better word, contrived. Valid points made yes, but is his hypothesis he accounted in no way for the human condition which by definition would not allow for the “bowing down” to allow us to be one same mind for the greater good of the world. Everyone no matter who they are looks out for number one, so to say that we are all the same conscious mind is rather lofty. Also, not everyone who has a higher i.q. or is of greater intelligence holds everyones bet interests at heart. Personally I feel that I.Q. doesn’t define who I am. I have a high I.Q. and I feel that shouldering the responsibility of someone who is of “lesser intelligence” than I. The thought that he is also the most intelligent man alive is possibly the most absurd, lofty statement he made throughout his entire video. He should stick to bouncing at clubs and remember that no matter who you are or where you come from there is always someone who is smarter than you or better than you at most things. Get over yourself.
By angelus177 on Oct 26, 2008 1:26:49 PM | Reply
This is what the missing sentence in the above statement should have said. ahhh computers .lol.
I don’t feel that the responsibility of someone who is of “lesser intelligence” than I is something I should have to do, nor would it be something that they would want me to do.
By AEM on Nov 11, 2008 1:40:14 AM | Reply
You ask how could a man with such a high IQ be so egotistical? Why should a higher intelligence denote a greater modesty? There is no connection between egocentrisism and ones intelligence; unless you are making the case that Chris, because of his high IQ should have the intellect and sophistiation to know the difference between each and act responsibly.
By JVC on Nov 22, 2008 7:31:31 PM | Reply
For having such a high IQ, this guy comes off as quite a moron. He wants to stop other people from reproducing, but suggests that a bouncer like him should be running the world and producing offspring. Give me a break. Who cares what score you get on a test. If all you’ve ever done for the world is break up fights at some dive bar, you haven’t really done a whole lot with that enormous cranium of yours, now have you?
By Jay on Nov 24, 2008 2:47:12 AM | Reply
I think, because he has a very high I.Q. he thinks his opinion on studies (like if head size relates to intelligence) is therefore correct. He could be very correct, but I also do think he is a little ignorant for saying that. I find it’s no big deal though, that’s his own opinion, one thing I disagree with is when he commented on how a intelligence a centipede is (and then he went on to larger animals talking about their abilities being greater). Well if you think about it, a centipede may have a small brain, but a centipede also is very physically limited in what it can do. So of course your going to observe it as a non intelligent creature. If it was being attacked by a larger animal, what can it possibly do (nothing, really)? Personally, I think the most intelligent thing he explained was when he was talking about the nature of the bell curve. The majority of the people in the world have an IQ in the normal range. Genius’s are as rare as mentally handicapped people. Being elected for president for example, I think they should be a part of the ultra-high IQ community. A job such as running the country, wouldn’t you think that the invidual should be considered, not highly intelligent, but gifted intelligent? At least? The whole world’s observing you, hoping for the best desicions to be made. Replying to the last quote, he grew up with his step-dad beating him, he mentioned he could not afford college when he was young so he resorted to physically intensive jobs, and in his meantime he has put his enormous cranium to his CTMU. I hope most people realize though, his definition of an intelligent human being is (in my own opinion) very very true. In a highly technically advanced world, he said it’s not always entirely clear what is right and wrong in any given situation, unless you can deconstruct the situation. The ability of intelligence relies on your ability to process multiple thoughts and problems in your head and solve them. That is very true. Because you are a genius math student, it doesn’t give you a genius title. One who focuses all their time, and people who make an area of study their “hobby” obviously have a greater chance of succeeding in that area. So I come to my conclusion, intelligence is a practice. In what an I.Q. test has come to test us, can we increase our abilities in the areas that we’re tested on? Absolutely. Mathematical, Spatial Visualization, Vocabulary and Verbal Analogies, Short Term Memory, you name it. These are common skills we use everyday, and human’s built the intelligence test, so all you have to do is you how to use those skills everyone has. Studies have been shown, there is absolutely no physical difference between a highly intelligent person’s and average person’s brain. What i’m saying in short, is yes an I.Q. is a good measure of one’s abilities, but is that number a definate, fixed number? It can’t be. Ever since I young, i always did average in school, but I always knew to myself I could do well, and I knew my potential was far greater than I had been using. I did average, my I.Q. averaged around 110, and now it averages between 140 and 150. I wanted to show people I was smart. It all comes from motive. Like Chris said “I always knew that one day, I would do something that would qualify me as a genius”. If you have that potential, but you never take charge of it, how will you ever be considered, or even know that you are or could be a genius?
By alex on Nov 26, 2008 6:05:04 PM | Reply
quirks aside, just like anyone else these days.
he’s right, leave him alone with your pettiness and hair splitting.
By AT on Dec 29, 2008 7:03:23 AM | Reply
For the most part I have come to realize that chris is smarter then the people above try to make him out to be. Now I may not have an IQ as high as chris but, I do understand this one thing. Everyone comes from different backgrounds and different people are limited in what direction they are able to move on with their life. What happens in a persons childhood stays with them for the rest of their life. I’m fairly certain that the obnoxious people above who think they are smarter or better then Chris are reflecting themsleves as being egotistic. I have a piece of advice for the hipocrits above. Be open to the world around you. That includes the fact that Chris is smarter then every last one of you!
By RD on Jan 6, 2009 12:08:18 AM | Reply
For those who would like to know a little more about smartness & success & their corelation- please read Malcolm Gladwel’s “Outliners”.
For those sceptical…please don’t be…have basic respect for a person that smart. He knows what he is saying. He has read more, more of absolutely anything…he undestands more…& perhaps what he says & its reference may not be clear to many people. so it would be wise to simply ask for clarifiction. Why he said…what he said & what does it imply…know more before we become more sceptical.
& a lot of things have to be viewed through prespectives…a lot of viewers don’t get that frame of reference. So they get annoyed.
Clearly as he said…people don’t like pople smarter than them. Sounds like we are still beheading Plato…even today.
By P on Jan 7, 2009 8:11:18 PM | Reply
Larger cranium=more space=more neurons=MORE DATA CAPACITY
By Ken on Jan 27, 2009 7:02:03 PM | Reply
Chris isn’t being cocky, just defensive. There’s a camera in his face and an interviewer with a lame premise of ‘ooooh let’s get to know the super smart guy’. He probably did it for money, as he’s crappy with it and in need of it. He knew it was beneath him, but again… he’s crappy with money. Note to Chris: Your time will come brother. Keep pining away at explaining the CTMU. They’ll get it… eventually.
By Viper996 on Apr 6, 2009 2:52:59 AM | Reply
You guys are looking at it all wrong. He seems egotistical because he is looking at everything as to how it should and could be, not how everything works out in “the real world.” We look at it as products of our society and all of the corruption that it entails. His views are extreme but when thought about from an outside perspective, make sense, mostly. The major one that I disagree with is the genetic modification. With our luck as humans, it will turn out like every bad sci-fi movie. It is the same thing that they did in the times of Greece and Rome, they chose only the best. The problem with this is that the gene pool WILL shrink. What is the solution then? What is a world where everyone is perfect and obedient, oh…a real life version of 300 except with better weapons and less ethics.
By Jeffrey Cole on Apr 27, 2009 1:52:50 AM | Reply
OK. Really though. All of you who have put him down or criticized him may be merely ignorant and insecure with what you are given. I doubt anyone of these people that have commented in a negative way have any idea of the things that he is touching on. By putting him down, you are proving his point of others reacting with hostility to those who are smarter than they. True there may be some problems with induction, most notably from those raised by David Hume, but surely there is some truth to the assessing of an individuals ability. Environment plays a huge role in the development of an individual. Put him in a middle class family with a good father and see what happens. Ludwig Wittgenstein is up there too and I think that he may be right there with him, but maybe not smarter. He’s smart as hell, get over it.
By Transcendental on Apr 27, 2009 2:07:17 AM | Reply
AS FOR HIS IDEA of not letting certain people breed, I take a quote of Nietzsche, “To recognize untruth as a condition of life-that certainly means resisting accustomed value feelings in a dangerous way; and a philosophy that risks this would by that token alone place itself beyond good and evil.” Beyond Good and Evil
By Transcendental on Apr 27, 2009 2:11:21 AM | Reply
From Wittgenstein on ethics,”6.42 So too it is impossible for there to be propositions of ethics. Propositions can express nothing that is higher. 6.421-It is clear that ethics cannot be put into words. Ethics is transcendental.”
By anthony on Aug 18, 2009 7:28:37 PM | Reply
Chris Langan has a high Iq ,but that does not necessarily mean that his ideas are correct. Most of his ideas about breeding for intelligence is frankly nothing new.
Unfortunate for Chris he needs to devote more time to brush up on his social skills becuase without people he will be a social lepper
isolated on his farm.
By tristan Broughton on Sep 8, 2009 9:11:10 PM | Reply
i think chris langan should become dictator of the new world
By ~N~ on Nov 2, 2009 2:25:25 AM | Reply
Jay’s perspective seems the most pragmatic. I can also attest to that I.Q. may be able to determine intellectual capacity at some point, but it will never assess whatever parts of the brain have yet to be developed. In layman’s terms, it can tell you if you’re smart, but not if you’re stupid.
Just today, I witnessed my I.Q. rise 35 points at the least, up to the 99% percentile. The expression on my parents’ faces was priceless.
By Perzyfied on Nov 2, 2009 10:09:57 AM | Reply
A lot of angry comments, as usual when you read about Chris Langan. I feel this mans pain, I don’t pity him or feel sorry for him thou. Imagine living surrounded by medioker minds all the time, like you where the only normally gifted and everybody else had downs syndrom. Like living in a mental institution…
I the reader of this is giftet him/herself then they must understand that.
I like his CTMU but it will never amount to much unless he develops it into mathematics, in my humble opinion. That’s the thruth about most amatuer theory, unless mathematical it never gets credit.
By Paul on Nov 12, 2009 9:12:42 PM | Reply
I didnt review all the videos, why is he content with only becoming a bouncer? He has been given an incredible gift, what ever endeavor he chooses, medicine, science etc. he could change the very landscape.
By wayne on Nov 18, 2009 1:26:23 PM | Reply
A genius no doubt he is, if you take the logical conclusion of our society it has to end badly without stopping the constant breeding of the intelligently poor, we will only end in a sess-pool of mediocrity. Or are we close already?
prisons are over crowded, millions starve, millions waste energy on trying to get rich all for what? If we increased our intellect, stopped this futile chase of materialism and figured out a way to feed the world properly, we might actually be able to get off this rock, and have some fun looking and learning about the rest of the Universe !
By Chris Montano on Dec 12, 2009 1:57:04 PM | Reply
I’m reading the book “Outliers” right now and Googled Chris Langan which brought me here. It’s almost entertaining to see how much criticism and negativity I see toward Chris Langan. I think Jeffrey Cole above is absolutely right in his analysis. People pull others down to try and make themselves look better. Amazing how much insecurity is out there. I believe if we get over our own egos we have the opportunity to learn something from everyone. We all have a different story, different experiences and ideas. We all have something to share. The problem for most… ego gets in the way of our chances to learn and grow. Depending on your religious beliefs, maybe we are merely here for God’s entertainment… a living sitcom if you will. lol
By John on Dec 19, 2009 6:52:28 PM | Reply
Chris Montano has it right. I too have a rather high IQ, and I attend the most selective university in the world. I’ve also come to realize that the difference between Christopher Langan’s IQ and mine is roughly equal to the difference between my IQ and that of a gibbon monkey. I’ve therefore concluded that he is much, much smarter than I and that I am simply not qualified to blindly criticize his theory.
By Leo on Jan 10, 2010 8:09:58 PM | Reply
I Agree with Chris Montano and Jeffrey Cole in their e-mails above. It’s disappointing that the other posts are not commenting on the topics Mr. Langan discusses. The concept of Universality – (which I define as the possibility that everyone and everything is connected, connected in ways we can’t perceive. I think maybe that’s what quantum physics is all about). We are all connected, there is zero degree of separation. Also, Mr. Langan discusses the concept of simultaneous thinking. It’s my understanding that being simultaneous is the ability to think about the past and the present and also future possibilities simultaneously. Hmmm new religion comments – a religion of logic? What will be the next social stage for humanity – the next dialectical transformation of (social) space be? – the next “religion”? Certainly not blind faith. But logic is not spiritual – or can it be? How will we express the joy of being alive beyond faith based religion? With logic? Logic is kinda linear and binary but I suppose it’s possible. I think it’s fair to say that people need something to give them hope and express love and joy – which is the better half of the role religion has played. Will it be Universality? If we are all connected and if hate and fear dominate then it grows and spreads – and so does the opposite. If society spreads more of one than the other – the majority rules.
By seymour on Jan 15, 2010 12:51:16 PM | Reply
Show us yer tits mate!
By Colby on Jan 19, 2010 6:08:46 AM | Reply
I would like to challenge Chris Landan! I have questions he couldn’t answer.
By Dan Ryan on Feb 7, 2010 12:11:41 PM | Reply
Tying philosophy with the irrational and decadent postclassical physics fad will drag it down. Chris felt he had to please his phony father figures by dragging their anti-intellect jealousy into his perception,clouding it through his inferiority complex. It’s like Aquinas chaining his genius to the irrational theological superstition.
By LOL on Jun 9, 2010 2:49:43 PM | Reply
You would feel egotistical (justifiable so) if everyone else around you were relatively idiotic and stupid.
By Funny on Nov 3, 2010 5:46:42 AM | Reply
The is exactly the thing, when someone is “praised” generally, it becomes critical to oppose slight indifferences. Einstein was praised because authority figures (leading scientists) affectionately went with him (tested his theories). Langan, on the other hand, detests academia, for one (limits these authorities to take him serious and test anything), which complicates it all. Then you have underlings (college students) that want to dismiss it. No man by himself is infallible, but his insights should be accounted for not dismissed. University was founded on that.
When it is a theory of everything and you have “specialized” groups of people peering in, they may have intelligence but not the breadth of understanding (ever hear the science versus art debate and which is better?). A physicist know physics and a chemist – chemistry. When you are linking this with “mind” no one is even an expert at that.
A lot of smart people say stupid things, too. And especially since he doesn’t have “credentials” to affirm his statements people become skeptical.
If I remember, relying on “experts” is a logical fallacy in itself.
Saying one SHOULD be modest due to intelligence? What? I barely think a mechanic would be modest if I went into his “world” and told him what’s what. Langan knows things differently because he’s read different things (possibly more important things – I don’t know)
Just understand the state education (formal) is in. I have a hunch that Langan is right that professors probably do suck up all the resources for self-interest. Just look at the lack of research in organic and natural medicine and the over indulgence in synthetic medications. FDA and big business + professors/intellectuals that have those vested interests on top of the patent system, that’s not intelligent. Gathering money for money sake isn’t intelligent. Creating wealth while improving the health and mentality of our specie, that’s intelligent.
That’s the way it works? That’s dismissive too. Dismissing what innately should be on our minds is neglect of being who we are (humanities will tell you that). Individuals should care for themselves but not to eradicate that potential for others. That’s not what a free society does.
All in all, be a healthy skeptic.
By jas on Nov 21, 2010 5:27:40 PM | Reply
After having read the critics of Chris’ ego, i must admit there are a number of inferior primates who can’t handle the truth: that their IQ is significantly less than his.
OK. it would be useful if we had Chris’ opinion on a number of world-wide issues: Economy, Deficits, Debts, Environment, Politics etc. let’s stop debating about who and who isn’t the smartest – that is already a given. let’s debate on more useful topics.
By marc on Dec 15, 2010 9:51:17 PM | Reply
over all I believe he is a man with high intellect but I find it anticlimatic that he claims to have this ultra high IQ but has nothing to show for it.
By Nick on Mar 5, 2011 3:02:24 PM | Reply
Yes ,Malcolm Gladwells Outliers tells Chris Langans story,as it does various other stories and random riveting facts.
By Harmonybear on Oct 19, 2011 7:20:20 PM | Reply
I just finished reading ‘Moonwalking With Einstein’, a very interesting look at memory and mnemonics; it also wrestles with the relationship between memory and intelligence. I stayed in that vein and started Gladwell’s ‘Outliers’ which led me to Chris Langan and eventually to this conversation. Most negative responses to Langan’s socio-political thoughts seem to be reactionary. I’m not at all comfortable with the genetic filtering he suggests but a more careful reading will show that Langan is directing our attention to a very real issue. He may, indeed, believe that he would make better decisions if he were in charge but that’s the claim of any politician, isn’t it? But, again, he points to the reality that our corporate-controlled culture tends to mediocrity; we have to raise the bar. And to those who demean him because he was a bouncer in a bar and say, “What has he done?”: He’s developed a foundation to create community and support for those kids (and adults) who are marginalized because of their braininess. And he’s using his own gift in an attempt to expand our understanding of reality. While his theories are grandly cosmological, they point to the very simple idea that everything is connected, we are all one, we are star dust. That points to a fellowship of humanity, the recognition that we are far more the same than we are different. He sees his IQ score as a fact but he’s clearly aware that IQ is a limited measure of ‘intelligence.’ And his confidence in his intelligence is well-founded. I don’t care if he crows a bit. I can take him with a grain of salt and he’s so easy on the eyes and ears!
By Clinet on Jan 17, 2012 9:48:29 AM | Reply
Interesting comments, although I didn’t read them all, I think no-one really touched on a bit of truth here. As Chris would say…”truth is all about absolutes”. In his comment about how 2+2=4 he suggested that you can’t argue with that much. That statement is absolutely true because we define it as such. Math is based on rules that create absolutes. Absolute truths and Absolute falsities are mathematical in nature with a 0 to 1 probability estimation. What is the probability that the earth will be here in the next 1 minute, nearly (1) or almost absolutely true. But even then, we can imagine a situation where the entire earth is destroyed by aliens…not matter how unlikely. So…the actual probability is closer to .9999 and not (1). But the expression of 2+2=4 is considered an absolute truth. Another absolute falsity is…”There are round squares” because we have defined a square as having 4 equal length sides and (4) 90 degree angles (rough definition). Therefore, there are no round squares. That statement was false because it breaks the law of mathematics. Now…my point….. Chris is undoubtedly a genius and very intelligent. But….in the big picture, and he would agree on this, it isn’t going to matter much. Chris has unfortunately boxed himself in to where no one is going to take him very seriously. When Stephen Hawking talks about cosmology, people will listen because of his credentials’. No matter how smart Chris is….. he’ll never get much recognition for his efforts. In the world of academia (and he eludes to this….. if you don’t have the credentials (degrees) to back you up….no matter how smart you are….you may wind up working in a bar. He can come up with all the theories he wants, but who is going to listen. Hawking has been established as an authority, and we all listen and provide little in the form of criticism. Now the real question is…..If I know this, and I’ve known this since I was 12 years old, obviously Chris has too. I mean, he’s smarter than me right? He went to college, but no degree. He could have easily challenged the tests, courses, exit exams etc…..where are his credentials’? So, this is for Chris….if you’re reading this. I know you’re smart…..but….make it count. I love what you have to say, and you are obviously brilliant, but until you get a PhD….no one is going to give you much of an audience. As smart as you are, you probably could get it done in a couple of years or so. With that, you can be on the advisor board for the president, or teach at an Ivy League school. That’s where you’ve missed the boat here. Like me, you came from a poor family, which miss directed your youth. You also have let yourself settle for your situation. You speak about the moral obligation of the High IQ’s. It’s time for you to step up to the plate. You potential can’t be realized until you are in a forum to be heard and a PhD will get you there. I know it seems ridiculous to do something like that considering you could teach your professors more than the can teach you, but…..suck it up, get qualified….and you’ll see it will be a game changer for you! Right now, the probability of you ever making a difference with your ideas, theories, or rhetoric is nowhere near (1).
By Clinet on Jan 17, 2012 10:04:21 AM | Reply
What I find interesting about IQ is that the concept and measurements of IQ are flawed. Example: IQ is calculated by taking a persons mental age and that number by their Chronological age then muliplying by 100. So, if a person tests to have the knowledge of a 20 year old, but is only 10 years old. Then 20/10 is 2 …then mulitple it times 100. That person has a calculated IQ of 200. Here’s the problem…..at 15 that person needs to have the knowledge and reasoning ability of a 30 year old to keep the IQ of 200. At 30 years old…they must have the mental age of a 60 year old. Well….at 50 years old…they should have the mental age of a 100 year old. IQ inherently will either incline or decline based on your life experiences and ulimately…..a calculated IQ of 200 can’t be maintained for I would think that the mental abilities of the very old is often, if not always, greatly diminished. What do you think?
By Russ Potter on Jan 28, 2012 5:21:13 PM | Reply
So Christopher Langan is highly intelligent, and he knows it. This combination can be problematic.
It is the natural tendency for every man and woman to think too highly of himself and herself. Moreover, the higher the status a man or woman realizes, the higher the opinion he or she will have of himself or herself.
Christopher Langan clearly has a high opinion of himself, but isn’t his opinion of himself a bit too high when he offers to be put in charge so that he can solve mankind’s problems such as deciding which people can have children and which people can’t?
One thing I find odd is that Christopher Langan, as smart as he is, thinks the world is overpopulated, that the thinning ozone layer is a concern and that the polar ice caps are going to melt.
It is ironic, isn’t it, that some incredibly inferior minds have managed to dupe Christopher Langan into believing modern day myths? It is even more ironic in light of Christopher’s comments about super intelligent people having less power over people with average intelligence in a democracy. In a few instances where the super intelligent Christopher Langan has the option of opposing academicians with inferior intellects, Christopher has chosen to acquiesce to their dogma.
By Daniel on Feb 19, 2012 3:36:14 PM | Reply
What doesnt make sense about intelligence and the size of a species head is that humans do not have the largest heads but we are the smartest, he is wrong that larger head size means more intelligence because animals such as elephants have larger heads than us but are less intelligent, interesting that he did not bring that up
By Adam Marsh on Feb 27, 2012 5:05:46 AM | Reply
Daniel – You, Mr Langan and I all know that elephants, whales and all sorts of animals with larger heads than humans, exhibit high intelligence.
BUT the size of a species head CORRELATES with more intelligence. Look at a data pool with millions upon millions of species.
You will find brain size correlates with intelligence. This does not mean there aren’t outliers or exceptions to the rule.
By Luke on Apr 15, 2012 2:46:43 PM | Reply
What Chris said about the centipede and other animals in relation to the volume of their brains is flawed in only one way. What he fails to realize is that the brain of a certain organism does not necessarily process things the same way as the next organism. Humans brains are obviously very efficient in their ability to process information and well, think. So, what he said may very well be true, because he is comparing his size efficient human brain to everyone else’s, meaning that as a human with a much larger than average cranium is more capable of complex processes and deeper and simultaneous thoughts. I’m 14 and have an IQ of 118. When you read something,think it through and be open.
By drax on Apr 30, 2012 1:59:35 AM | Reply
You don’t have to let your jeleousy and your covetousness in wanting to be number one in some form or fashion molest the fact that everything he said is absolutely to the T true. For instance brain capacity. You seem kind of jealous. (chuckles) The “in my opinion” quote is a type of PC I would think for all the smaller cranial folks out there. I even meet a guy at the beginning of the year who is becoming a craniologist. You might want to check it out look at it this way. It should make sense to you. Say peoples brains are like a warehouse. Where you store as many cannons as you possibly can. The larger the warehouse the more cannons you’ll have stored in it. But even if you had the larger warehouse it doesn’t necessarily mean your going use all of it. That is left to the individual.