FeedBrains And Brawn — Chris Langan Has It All
Written by BignFuzzy on March 16, 2008 – 4:55 am -A 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.