Christian Sorensen on the High-Range and Moving Forward


Christian is a Philosopher that comes from Belgium. What identifies him the most and above all is simplicity, for everything is better with “vanilla flavour.” Perhaps, for this reason, his intellectual passion is criticism and irony, in the sense of trying to reveal what “hides behind the mask,” and give birth to the true. For him, ignorance and knowledge never “cross paths.” What he likes the most in his leisure time, is to go for a walk with his wife.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s focus a tad on some of the most exclusive high-IQ groups known: The Giga Society, the Mega Society, the OLYMPIQ Society, etc. The Giga Society known membership of Thomas R. A. Wolf, Matthew Scillitani, Andreas Gunnarsson, Scott Ben Durgin, Dany Provost, Rolf Mifflin, Paul Johns, Evangelos G. Katsioulis, and Rick Rosner. The Mega Society membership listing semi-known. The OLYMPIQ Society membership to date: Dr. Evangelos G. Katsioulis, MD, MSc, PhD, Bart Miles, Laura N. Kochen, D.X.J., Christophe Dodos, Steve Schuessler, George Ch. Petasis, A.F., Jonas Högberg, Mari Takishita, J. W., Thomas B., Jan Willem Versluis, Alexander Prata Maluf, Dr. Christopher Philip Harding, Oliver Q., Wayne Zhang, Martin Tobias Lithner, Miguel Angel Soto-Miranda, M.D., Hever Horacio Arreola Gutierrez, Wang Peng, Takahiro Kitagawa, Andreas Andersson, Lee HanKyung, M.D., Julio Machado, Misaki Ota, Erik Hæreid, Santanu Sengupta, Qiao Hansheng, Dr. Benoit Desjardins, MD, PhD, Wen-Chin Sui, Yaron Mirelman, JMoriarty, Fan Yiwen, Zhibin Zhang (张智彬), Chen Anping, Dr. Yasunobu Egawa, Ph.D., Raymond Walbrecq, Junlong Li(李俊龙, Prof. Vernon M. Neppe MD, PhD, Nth Bar-Fields, Susumu Ota, Li Shimin, Marios Prodromou, Rickard Sagirbay, Dan Liu (刘丹), YoungHoon Bryan Kim (김영훈), W. C., Jo Christopher Montalban Resquites, and Entemake Aman. Some were simply listed as anonymous, but these come from straight from the website for OLYMPIQ. Pars Society of Baran Yönter looks defunct. PolymathIQ Society seems defunct. Sigma V seems functional while old in its setup with 12 open members, including Hindemburg Melão Jr., Petri Widsten, Alexandre Prata Maluf, Rauno Lindström, Peter David Bentley, Bart Lindekens, Joachim Lahav, Marc Heremans, Staffan Svensson, Will Fletcher, Guilherme Marques dos Santos Silva, and Lloyd King. Sigma V seems functional while old in its setup with 12 open members, including Hindemburg Melon Jr., Petri Widsten, Alexandre Prata Maluf (Prospective member), and Peter David Bentley (Prospective member). The Unicorn Society seems like or merged with the Sigma Society (one of them), and largely paralyzed if not defunct. Ultima Society seems functional while mainly based on the personality, tests, and opinions of Ivan Ivec. Ivec lists Steve Fell’s artwork, World Famous IQ scores, etc. Nano Society seems defunct. One in Five Society of Huck Nembelton appears defunct. PolymathIQ Society of Ron Altmann looks defunct. Universal Genius Society of Brennan Martin seems defunct. Omega seems to have some members with Adam Kisby, Angell O. de la Sierra, Brian M. Schwartz, Brian Wiksell, Dany Provost, David Michael Fabian, David Smith, John Fahy, Kemin Tsung, Patrick J. Maitland, Richard May, a.k.a. May-Tzu, Robert S. Munday, and Ken Shea. Grail Society of Paul Cooijmans appears functional, but open to applicants so to speak. GenerIQ of Mislav Predavec appears functional. Pi Society of Nikos Lygeros appears open and active. Maybe, in another article, I can provide comprehensive research on the various societies for those with an interest, but I see this as tedious even with this minor presentation of the research. How accurate are measurements at the 1 in a 1,000,000 level or more?

Christian Sorensen: In my opinion it is possible to achieve accurate, reliable and valid measurements, up to a certain limit, below as well as above this rarity. The latest, as long as the utilized tests are applied by professionals, since they are the only ones, that besides being normalized, and standardized, actually have a solid scientific support. Under this perspective, at least the Wechsler Scale of Intelligence for Adults, in its R form, and because it integrates a concept denominated deterioration coefficient, regarding the age range of 75 years or more, is able to measures an IQ score up to 179 with 15 standard deviations, which would be equivalent to a rarity of 1 in 14,000,000.

Jacobsen: Also, there are test creators: Mislav Predavec, Robert Lato, Ivan Ivec, Pablo Fernández González, Ladislav Dubravský, Christoffer Collin, Jérôme-Olivier Billet, Bill Bultas, ‘Rottus,’ Nik Lygeros, Peter Schmies, Tommy Smith, Nicolas-Elena, Michael Dickheiser, Laurent Dubois, Dillon, Jason Betts, Kevin Langdon, Jeff Leonard, LiangTian, Ronald Hoeflin, Ivan Ivec, Paul Cooijmans, Iakovos Koukas, Xavier Jouve, Jonathan Wai, Zoran Bijac, Theodosis Prousalis, Gianluigi Lombardi, Brennan Martin, Miroslav Radojević, Andre Gangvik, Dawid Skyrzos, Gabriel Garofalo, Nitish Joshi, Gaetano Morelli, Beatrice Rescazzi, Jim Lorrimore, T. Hobstrom, Naoki Kouda, Christopher Harding, Leela Pappadioti, Anthony Lawson, Christian Backlund, James Dorsey, Tonny Sellen, Julien Arpen, Nikolaos U. Soulious, Paul Laurent, Andre Gangvik, Jonathan Wai, Yukun Wang, Benjamin Noh, Guillermo Alejandro Escarcega Pliego, Marc-Andre Nydegger, Randy Myers, Tor Arne Jorgenson, John Culkin, Valeria Lanari, Alexi Edin, Lunardini, Prettini, Sjoberg, Logan Smith, Gordon, Lunardini, Prettini, and many others. Any test creators who stand out here?

Sorensen: Actually no, because beyond the names mentioned within this list, and though there may be professional psychometrists such as Xavier Jouve, mathematicians like Ivan Ivec and Marco Ripa, or members of the high-IQ community, who try to work seriously as James Dorsey and Jason Betts indeed do… It may be sustained, that all the aforementioned qualifications, even if they’re taken together, they are not enough, since for a psychometric instrument, to really measure what it intends to measure, and not something else, or in other words, for being consistent and accurate with their measurements, when these must be repeated over time, inevitably a scientific refutation and empirical-experimental criticism is going to be contingently demanded. The latest, implies among other factors, a prolonged process of permanent revisions, as has occurred for example with Wechsler and Stanford-Binet scales, who have had more than 70 years of periodic updates. Therefore, in my opinion, and based on this context, none of those who are or is not here enlisted, seems to actually stand out, due to the fact, that I believe according to the parameters before indicated, that they lack the most fundamental methodological and experimental means, in order to be capable to hold demonstratively any of their jobs.

Jacobsen: What are some of the important considerations in reflection of the highest levels of ability?

Sorensen: I think that when speaking of IQ scores, which ultimately what they purport, is to be objective indicators of intelligence, what is essential, under any point of view, is that they manage to measure validly and reliably, its three main areas, that is to say the numeric, verbal and spatial ones, and in turn that IQ scores could be differential representatives, depending if whether they partially refer to one or another, or to the sum of these, in order to ultimately objectify a partial or general intelligence index. Likewise, as the infinitesimal percentage extreme of the general population is reached, along the highest capacity measurements, and therefore the probability of error increases, it is plausible to conclude since the probability of error is less, that if quantitative ranges of IQs with qualitative distinctions, instead of scores associated with discrete characteristics, are accurately defined, that then exceptionally high IQ measurements can be alluded and inferable with a reasonably acceptable level of reliability.

Jacobsen: What high scorers really impress you?

Sorensen: Mine.

Jacobsen: What are the various aspects of the WAIS deserving serious scrutiny and replication in alternative intelligence tests in the future to make them more robust?

Sorensen: On the one hand, to sustain a strict empirical methodology, that follows their developments and reviews, in order to give them enough predictive capacity. The fact that they should be reliably covering, the main areas of general intelligence, by being able to provide not only general IQ scores, but also partial calculations regarding each type of intelligence. And ultimately, to successfully and consistently approve the empirical refutations, through which science will surely confront them extensively over time.

Jacobsen: What subtest of the WAIS is the most predictive as a singular metric of general intelligence?

Sorensen: I think that the cubes subtest, since it is not interfered by cultural conditionings, and measures abstraction, analysis and synthesis capacities, which in my opinion, are the more reliable indicators, and therefore the best predictors of general intelligence.

Jacobsen: Mr. Sorensen, thank you for the chance to delve further into this topic much more, your experience and intelligence are much appreciated.

Sorensen: Thank you for this opportunity, and I hope that my citronic criticism, will serve to develop other professional tests, that can be more than mere games to hypertrophy the egos.

Image Credit: Christian Sorensen.

Leave a Reply