Born to do Math 193 – A Man’s Own(ed) Pursuits: Self-Formulated Teleology
November 15, 2020
[Beginning of recorded material]
Jacobsen: Rick, what is the future of IQ?
Rosner: Like we’ve talked about this before.
Jacobsen: Or what is the future relevance of IQ and its diminishment?
Rosner: Well, IQ has only been around for a century, Binet came up with an idea of a five-point scale for testing kids to see what kind of educational resources they might need. Ones and twos need help for dumb kids. Four and five need help for smart kids. Terman took it over in the US. Put it on that, the hundred-point chronological ratio scale. You take your middle age divide by your calendar age times a hundred is your IQ. You’re going to kind of grow from there. It was fairly widely accepted, I believe. A lot of, I think, psychology, psychiatry was pretty widely accepted in the US from the 20s through the 60s and 70s, then people started questioning everything and including IQ and now IQ, I think is considered kind of quaint. People have tried to replace it with various other theories, indices, emotional IQ and multifactor models.
And the whole thing has also been hampered by it just not being that handy, I think. Like it is falsely precise, like somebody who says they have an IQ of 143 is not going to be any different from somebody who says they have an IQ of 138 or 147 or 130. It is as with the SAT it doesn’t add much. Adding some score on an IQ test to their academic or professional dossier doesn’t tell you much more than you could learn from the rest of the dossier and from talking with them for half an hour. It is, in a lot of instances, actually a minus. It is somebody who brings up their IQ. I think Hawking was quoted as saying anybody who needs to brag about their IQ is a loser. This is from a guy who’s melted into his wheelchair. So it is people who are culturally cognizant, kind of know that IQ has a stink of loserdom about it. Which doesn’t mean you cannot have fun with it. I have obsessively taken IQ tests off and on for most of my life, so I can brag in a sad way about my high scores. But it is mostly useless.
A couple times, maybe in my 20s, it may have help get me laid. Maybe, though, that’s a really small window to try to jump through, who you’re jumping on to if it is based on IQ, anyway. What replaces IQ, I feel will be measures of information processing power based on more sophisticated models of how information and processing and consciousness works, which will eventually get to in a pretty precise way. But we probably still have twenty years of not being there yet. You could consider the various measures of calculating capacity associated with computers as a type of measurement of machine intelligence. But really shitty measure, because for the most part, machines are at the very beginning of machine learning and really do not have that much intelligence at this point.
They still have a specific task oriented intelligence that you can set up a machine learning program that will in a short amount of time make a computer the best Go player in the world, except for other computers or the best video game player in the world. But it is still pretty specific. Computers still cannot pass the Turing test. So measures of computational power are pretty bad indices for machine intelligence. The number of floating point calculations per second doesn’t really tell you how smart a machine is. We understand what intelligence is, the mathematical models of consciousness should be decent indices originating from that. Regardless of the indices, we should see people for the most part not give a shit about becoming smarter in general.
Some people are like; how can I make myself smart? I get written; I get emails from people and I tell people the best thing you can do is just read your ass off and then engage in the types of exercises that are parts of IQ tests. Try to mathematicise things in your world, like try to mathematically analyze aspects of your world. But not many people are interested in doing that. In general, people are more interested in making themselves more competitive in whatever their specific endeavors are. The same way when I was writing jokes for late night, I was very interested in making myself a better joke writer because I’d often get told that my jokes sucked, so with everybody else. So I felt like I was getting told that more than other people.
Also, so, I’ve tried to increase my IQ, but in terms of my career; I was interested in making myself smarter and better. I think that applies to most. I think that people are and will increasingly begin to get the idea of strategically becoming really good and certain applications or certain A.I. aided technologies to make yourself effectively smarter in ways that pertain to your work. I think that will happen more and more. That will be a thing that can actually happen, that you can team up with A.I. to make yourself smarter in a specific field.
For instance, doctors are kind of notorious for once they’re done with their medical training, not every doctor, but some doctors for knowing what they know, but not really extending themselves to extend what they know. You can maybe learn stuff that said you get it. If you get a disease, you can go on the Internet and you can learn shit about your disease that your doctor may not know because your doctor is busy treating people with the disease and may or may not be keeping up perfectly well with everything that’s going on with the disease. Also, the doctor may be kind of snotty about what he considered or she considers information and may just poo-poo a lot of shit that you can learn from the Internet because it doesn’t come to them from a journal.
And also because there’s such a high ratio of bullshit garbage to legit stuff that comes to you via the Internet. But still, doctors or most doctors aren’t optimal at learning everything there is to learn in their field and certainly not everything there is to learn about medicine in general. But I could see a doctor, I could see apps arise. A.I. based apps that keep doctors better informed than they are now. the doctors who are become really good at using those apps might be better doctors. When I could see that happening in a lot of fields. The hard sciences all these fields, the amount of information in the world, what doubles every year or so now.
Jacobsen: Yes, super crazy.
Rosner: Yes. So apps that help plow through all the best stuff would make any. If they’re decent would make anybody better at their job if their job is involved, staying up to date. So I guess that’s what I think the future of intelligence where it lies is the human A.I. alliances and alliances is too lofty a word that initially humans just using getting really good at using A.I. A.I. getting better at being A.I. then in the beginning, it is a Google relationship. It is via a keyboard or it is via a thing you yell at like an Alexa, then in the future things get creepier and more intimate as people. The Alexa the future become more like robot butlers. They become more people like. on the one hand, and on the other hand, people can become more intimately linked with A.I.
If Google Glass didn’t work because it was too creepy, but there will certainly be some optical based interfaces coming. Smart contact lenses, smart glasses that do not piss people off as much as Google Glass did. More risk based stuff. Maybe, I always imagined some A.I. like being worn as like a little breastplate in this novel I’m working on. You’ve got what I call “bugs,” which are basically your handheld device, except they’ve got little legs and they just ride you. They sit on your shoulder or if you need them, they crawl down your arm and they’re like, “Hey, pal.” So there will be wearables. Anyway, it is increasingly pervasive and intimate partnerships with A.I. that’s where intelligence is going and that’s where it already is to some extent. It is hard to tell. I think I’ve said this a zillion times before, that our apps have made us so obviously into idiots that it is easy to miss where they’ve made us smarter. The example I always use being ways that nobody has to get lost driving anymore. Getting lost is a weird thing if you’re driving a car that was made after I do not know what, 2011 now or if you’ve got a fucking phone. You might be driving like an asshole because you’re dividing your attention between your driving app and your actual driving, but you’re not really getting lost. Might be driving past your turn and having to go two more extra miles to get to the next exit. But still that’s not lost, where something in your car knows where you are. So anyway, I guess that’s pretty much it. That’s where intelligence is going.
And it’ll get there probably before we have ways of measuring how good it is. People will get smarter in conjunction with A.I. Faster than we will have measurements of how much smarter working with A.I. might be making this. that might not be a big deal, because when you look at how helpful IQ is not and the new indices may not be that helpful either, the proof is in the pudding. Does it matter to Bill Gates who has 80 billion dollars, what his IQ is? No, fucking, does it matter? Did it matter to Steve Jobs? His IQ didn’t make him the saint of Apple, nor did it stop him from being proactive about treating his cancers. So the proof is in the fucking pudding and not in your score on a test.
Jacobsen: The end.
[End of recorded material]
American Television Writer
(Updated July 25, 2019)
*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.*
According to some semi-reputable sources gathered in a listing here, Rick G. Rosner may have among America’s, North America’s, and the world’s highest measured IQs at or above 190 (S.D. 15)/196 (S.D. 16) based on several high range test performances created by Christopher Harding, Jason Betts, Paul Cooijmans, and Ronald Hoeflin. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writers Guild Awards and Emmy nominations, and was titled 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Directory with the main “Genius” listing here.
He has written for Remote Control, Crank Yankers, The Man Show, The Emmys, The Grammys, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. He worked as a bouncer, a nude art model, a roller-skating waiter, and a stripper. In a television commercial, Domino’s Pizza named him the “World’s Smartest Man.” The commercial was taken off the air after Subway sandwiches issued a cease-and-desist. He was named “Best Bouncer” in the Denver Area, Colorado, by Westwood Magazine.
Rosner spent much of the late Disco Era as an undercover high school student. In addition, he spent 25 years as a bar bouncer and American fake ID-catcher, and 25+ years as a stripper, and nearly 30 years as a writer for more than 2,500 hours of network television. Errol Morris featured Rosner in the interview series entitled First Person, where some of this history was covered by Morris. He came in second, or lost, on Jeopardy!, sued Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? over a flawed question and lost the lawsuit. He won one game and lost one game on Are You Smarter Than a Drunk Person? (He was drunk). Finally, he spent 37+ years working on a time-invariant variation of the Big Bang Theory.
Currently, Rosner sits tweeting in a bathrobe (winter) or a towel (summer). He lives in Los Angeles, California with his wife, dog, and goldfish. He and his wife have a daughter. You can send him money or questions at LanceVersusRick@Gmail.Com, or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn, or see him on YouTube.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Founder, In-Sight Publishing
 Four format points for the session article:
- Bold text following “Scott Douglas Jacobsen:” or “Jacobsen:” is Scott Douglas Jacobsen & non-bold text following “Rick Rosner:” or “Rosner:” is Rick Rosner.
- Session article conducted, transcribed, edited, formatted, and published by Scott.
- Footnotes & in-text citations in the interview & references after the interview.
- This session article has been edited for clarity and readability.
For further information on the formatting guidelines incorporated into this document, please see the following documents:
- American Psychological Association. (2010). Citation Guide: APA. Retrieved from http://www.lib.sfu.ca/system/files/28281/APA6CitationGuideSFUv3.pdf.
- Humble, A. (n.d.). Guide to Transcribing. Retrieved from http://www.msvu.ca/site/media/msvu/Transcription%20Guide.pdf.
License and Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com and www.rickrosner.org.
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.