The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See

[andy06shake]

I was sharing my own opinion there!

Oh i get that LightAngel.

I actually think Langan has some interesting ideas and ways of looking at the world.

But he's also a hop, skip, and a jump away from being a white supremacist.

Considering some of the public statements he has come away with.

I think it's a safe bet to suggest some of his views could be characterised as racist, to say the least.

[Truthhurts]

He is truly an idiot, asserting that Trump's IQ is on par with that of a Harvard professor.  His racism only serves to lower his IQ further, as intelligent people recognize the importance of seeing individuals rather than groups.r"

[LightAngel]

I don't agree with him 100% (I don't agree 100% with anybody), but I think there is a lot of good thoughts shared in this interview. 

What we see in others is sometimes more about ourselves and our pain. It's called projection. Sometimes people attribute feelings or traits to others that they haven't fully acknowledged in themselves.

Think about that before you post your thoughts.

[andy06shake]

I don't agree with him 100% (I don't agree 100% with anybody), but I think there is a lot of good thoughts shared in this interview. 

What we see in others is sometimes more about ourselves and our pain. It's called projection. Sometimes people attribute feelings or traits to others that they haven't fully acknowledged in themselves.

Think about that before you post your thoughts.

There is seeing things in others, LightAngel.

And then there is clearly hearing them being said.

Langan is projecting racism via the silly things he chooses to say.

Some of his comments are demeaning and racially insensitive.

Just a fact that comparing Black people to Apes or Gorillas is wrong.

As any smart person can discern. 

And not something one expects from a person purported to possess the highest IQ in the world.

I ponder which feelings or traits Langan refuses to acknowledge in himself?

[LightAngel]

I ponder which feelings or traits we all refuses to acknowledge in ourselves.

[andy06shake]

I ponder which feelings or traits we all refuses to acknowledge in ourselves.

My understanding is that those are generally the ones that make us feel vulnerable, flawed, and uncomfortable.

I think we all may need a big mirror sometimes.

But there are limits to what can be said, without people forming opinions.

Language, after all, always carries with it interpretation.

[LightAngel]

I skipped ahead to 1:12:30 to hear about UFOs and he has a pretty straight forward opinion.

The amount of people reporting them can't all be crazy or just "seeing things". When you have millions of people saying the same thing, it's not just a coincidence. People with a closed mind, who filter out anything that doesn't match their world view, will never see anything out of the ordinary, because they've already made up their minds they don't exist.

Interdimensional lifeforms would be able to travel in strange ways. 

[Solvedit]

Is this the same fella who argues that average IQ differences between racial groups are genetic?

If so im apt to dispute the "highest IQ in the world" part.

Do you have evidence you can cite that it is not so?  

Do you simply hold out for proof beyond a reasonable doubt before giving up the benefit of the doubt?  

Can it be you've been influenced by people who find it opportune to stoke malcontention?  

Your implication that all racial groups have a uniform distribution of intelligence is a formula for stoking malcontention.  Please consider the idea that you may have taken in a little politically motivated ideology.

Even if it were ever so thousands of years ago that intelligence was evenly distributed among racial groups, the way societies or environments shape people offers no guarantee that all demographics of a given society will remain proportionate to their counterparts in other societies.  

There is also evidence which is rarely contested any more that while we're all mostly Homo sapiens, there is considerable living ancestry left from H. neanderthalensis, H. denisovus, H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. habilis, H. naledi, H. rudolfiensis, and various as-yet-undiscovered hominins which are presently extinct as distinct species.

[andy06shake]

Do you have evidence you can cite that it is not so?  

Do you simply hold out for proof beyond a reasonable doubt before giving up the benefit of the doubt?  

Can it be you've been influenced by people who find it opportune to stoke malcontention?  

Your implication that all racial groups have a uniform distribution of intelligence is a formula for stoking malcontention.  Please consider the idea that you may have taken in a little politically motivated ideology.

Even if it were ever so thousands of years ago that intelligence was evenly distributed among racial groups, the way societies or environments shape people offers no guarantee that all demographics of a given society will remain proportionate to their counterparts in other societies.  

There is also evidence which is rarely contested any more that while we're all mostly Homo sapiens, there is considerable living ancestry left from H. neanderthalensis, H. denisovus, H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. habilis, H. naledi, H. rudolfiensis, and various as-yet-undiscovered hominins which are presently extinct as distinct species.

The views he holds, and things he has said, are public knowledge. 

He compares Somali immigrants to Gorillas and argues that some racial groups have a lower average IQ due to genetics.

He thinks that interracial relationships are socially harmful.

And believes that selective breeding is the answer where certain populations are concerned.

What he is and what he believes is rather clear.

There's no credible scientific evidence that modern racial groups differ in innate intelligence down to genetics.

And Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA contributes small traits, not our intelligence hierarchy.

Race is a social category, it's not a biological one.

And humans share 99.9% the same DNA.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...utm_source
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PM...utm_source

[Maxmars]

In order to have the highest anything in the world you must measure everything in the world.

No one has measured every IQ in the world... so the title as stated is a falsehood.

The "virtue" messaging about "it's an honor" delivers the message that the production "is selling" the idea that this individual is the "smartest man in the world."

But why?

Has he something to teach for you, the host..., the interviewer?


Incidentally or not, I learned that people still are allowing the intelligentsia to 'tell you' how and what "intelligence"is.... by "measuring" canned question responses.... uhh... yeah...  

... the smartest person in the world might never participate in such a useless entertainment effort.

Maybe thinking of it as an insult to 'perform' for the amusement and gains of some sponsor.  And a few minutes of "look at me" pea-cocking time... which their egos have no need for.   Media producers may find one who's ego still trembles with delight over being referred to as 'exceptional.'

I spent many (many) years with many (many) geniuses... and their social ilk....
Look for no "salvation" there...  not one of them wasn't already "bought and paid for," or 'entrenched' in an intellectual fantasy they themselves are building.

And 85% of them don't learn at all... they memorize and report what they learn as "my knowledge."

There is a game of social standing there... and it is nothing if not 'laughable' ego-focused nonsense.