Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Athaenara (talk | contribs) at 10:42, 14 April 2007 (Three sections inactive for two weeks or more - "User 151.151.21.101" "Perfect SAT score" "Autodidact" - to Talk:Christopher Michael Langan/Archive 3.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an archive of past discussions about Christopher Langan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User 151.151.21.101

User 151.151.21.101 has now revealed a clear intention to disrupt the editing of this article, to ignore all arguments, to make edits without any attempt at adequate justification, to ignore Misplaced Pages policy, and to presume bad faith on the part of other editors. Until such time as this user demonstrates a different intention, I believe all editors are justified in ignoring contributions coming from this user, and justified in reverting disruptive edits by this user. FNMF 22:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I was about to say that about you. You're approaching making yourself subject to the ArbCom decision which banned DrL and Asmodeus from the article.

Consider yourself warned. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool -- a warning war! --Otheus 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have done nothing other than argue my case. These arguments have been supported by other editors. But these arguments are utterly ignored by users who edit the article without even attempting to justify their arguments. You have given no grounds for any warning. Making threats without grounds is simply intimidation. FNMF 22:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You have added favorable (but questionably sourced) material and removed unfavorable material against clear consensus. I don't know whether that's sufficient to put you under sanctions, but I'm certainly considering going to the ArbCom for comment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a review of my edits will show I have added or removed almost nothing. I have argued extensively about certain questions, and the answers to some of those questions have, I believe, become clearer as a result. Other editors have supported by arguments, and the article has improved as a result. I am happy to have my contributions scrutinised by whomever you like. FNMF 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The only souce of disruption here is the use this article by Langan's cronies to continue Langan's campaign of spin and self promotion. You're creation of this section dedicated to a personal attack is evidence of their disruptive nature. 151.151.21.104 23:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not created a section devoted to a "personal attack." I have given five separate reasons why your editing is a problem, and any user who disagrees is welcome to provide evidence that these reasons are invalid. I hope that in the future your edits will be measured, thoughtful, and constructive, but at the present moment I believe my 5 reasons are valid. FNMF 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfect SAT score

I am critical of the wording and skeptical of the claim that he scored a 1600. These scores are private, and the only proof could come from Langon himself. Also, the SAT article notes (but uncited) that in some years, it was impossible to get a 1600. Langdon Langan would have taken it around 1973? The citation comes from the reporter's voiceover from the 20/20 special. The reporter provides no evidence. Does this meet the WP:ATT guidelines? --Otheus 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Does what meet ATT? The SAT score, if not documented, has to go. •Jim62sch• 12:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The 20/20 article is narrated by a reporter who claims that Langan scored the 1600. 20/20 is a secondary source used throughout wikipedia. My question is: Is there anyway someone could independently verify this score? If not, then is this statement attributable, even though it is cited by a secondary source? --Otheus 15:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Did he state it unequivocally, or did he say "it is reported"? There's no way to verify, I'm assuming Langan made the claim. •Jim62sch• 00:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Autodidact

Re: (autodidact is not the same as self-taught...) Uh, yes, it is. Greek: auto = self, didaktikos = taught. •Jim62sch• 12:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically, Gretab is correct. One can be self-taught without being an autodidact. (This time, I didn't rely on Wiktionary) Autodidact refers to an approach to learning. I might be self-taught to play video games, but that doesn't mean I can claim to be "self-taught". Based on the comments I saw in the rest of the article, and from Langan's autobigraphical statements, autodidact appears to be a more precise term than merely "self taught". --Otheus 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a source for the claim that one can be self-taught without being an autodidact? Because I have sources that says both you and Gretab are wrong:

• Autodiact: A self-taught person. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
• Autodiact: A person who has taught himself WordNet 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University
• Autodiact: A person who has learned a subject without the benefit of a teacher or formal education; a self-taught person. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary,

To avoid attempts to redfine "autodiact" to cast Langan in a different light, we must stick to a verifiable definition like the ones at dictionary.reference.com. 151.151.21.103 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It amazes me that the thread go this long. Shame etymology isn't taught in school these days. •Jim62sch• 00:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Or epistemology. Or logic. We can thank Dewey and the Pragmatists for that. But I digress.

While an autodidact (notice the second 'd') is defined as a self-taught person, it is not necessarily the case the reverse is true.

But we are also talking about connotation and a quirk about English grammar. When you say a person "is self-taught", because taught is in the past tense, it gives the impression of being in the past. It is also ambiguous, as people are likely to say/think/ask, "self-taught in what?" But if you say a person is an autodidact, it maintains the present tense and does not suggest when the self-teaching occurred. It also implies a general sense of being self-taught. For instance, I taught myself how to program computers. But I don't go around claiming I'm an autodidact. With Langdon, if you say he is "self-taught" and mention his IQ and status as a bouncer, well, that hardly gives a meaningful impression.

For that reason it's as I stated earlier -- an approach to learning. Langan is generally self-taught (or something like that), but more critically, I think, his attitude seems to be "why should I bother learning from someone who is my intellectual inferior". That's the impression I got from the video interview.

Having said that, I assume someone else did call him an autodidact, right? Because if not, then the whole thing is OR.

--Otheus 01:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism removed •Jim62sch• 10:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Otheus, I think you're getting carried away, and trying to use shades of meaning (semantics) that are non-existant. It's irrelevant whether someone else called him an autodidact when we're using true synonyms (and they are a rarity). Note this sentence, "Langan is author of the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe...". Did anyone actually call him the author? Would it matter if we said author, designer, developer, creator or inventor? The semantic value of the words would be equivalent in this case.

BTW, in teaching yourself how to program computer, you were engaged in autodidacticism. Maybe your next challenge should be linguistics -- I suggest Ferdinand de Saussure, Mario Pei and the Journal of Language and Linguistics at as starters. Should you wander by my user page, you'll not varying degrees of proficience in 14 languages, 12 of which were self-taught. Thus, I have every right to claim that I am an autudidact in linguistics/languages. •Jim62sch• 11:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I hate to reply-n-run, but I need to go on wikibreak to concentrate on real life for a few days. I actually fully intend on investing time on linguistics.

Perhaps I am getting "carried away". But the shades here are existent: There's a difference whether you label someone in the lead as an autodidact versus "a self-taught person". Whether the difference here applies or not depends, I think, on the source for this label. Maybe someone else can comment on whether Langan should even be described as "self-taught".

And yes, we engaged in autodidactism. But in both cases, we qualified that with "in computers" or "in languages". Because Langan actually went and attended school, I'm don't think we can call him an autodidact. By contrast, here in Austria, there was a girl who was kidnapped when she was 9 or 10. They found her 7+ years later. Upon her release, she appeared to be more educated than the typical 17 year old. I think it can be said, truly, she is an autodidact.

Finally, you're right -- true synonyms are a rarity. However, "self-taught" is an adjective, whereas "autodidact" is a noun. These aren't synonyms. --Otheus 09:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any media source calling Langan an "autodidact". Uncommon Dissent's "Contributors" section labels him an "independent researcher and reality theorist", and this ISCID chat introduces him as a "reality theorist and researcher". How about:

Christopher Michael Langan (born c. 1957) is an American independent researcher whose IQ was reported by 20/20 and other media sources to have been measured at around 195.

Tim Smith 00:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think autodidact is ok, and so is independent researcher. Perhaps "Independent researcher" should appear in the infobox? --Honorable citizen 12:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually favor removal of the infobox; I think it clutters the article while adding little of value. "Independent researcher" might be better than "autodidact", since Uncommon Dissent uses the former, but no source, that I can find, uses the latter. Tim Smith 14:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, as the sources and the article already makes clear he's self taught; an autodidact. Replacing autodidact with "Independent researcher" is pure puffery. 151.151.21.105 21:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Christopher Michael Langan (born c. 1957) is an American autodidact whose IQ was reported by 20/20 and other media sources to have been measured at around 195."

Anyone who's read a newspaper knows that good writers don't use big words simply to appear intelligent. Unless you're writing for a "smart" audience, you shouldn't use them. No one cares that you have a big vocabulary; vocabulary size is useless in the real world anyway, even if it's weakly correlated with success. Get a life. Bulldog123 19:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So much for the idea that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate its readers... The term 'autodidact' is linked to the Autodidact article for anyone who bothers to read the article and is not familiar with the term. Heaven forbid a Misplaced Pages user learn a new word... FeloniousMonk 02:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, why don't journalists use high-level words? Why don't writers of real encyclopedias? All using "self-taught intellectual" instead of "autodidact" does is make the article less frustrating for most people to read. Bulldog123 03:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What have you been reading? Harpers, New York Times, The New Yorker. 151.151.21.105 22:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bulldog123, there are a couple of problems with "self-taught intellectual"; namely, intellectual is sort of POV here, and usually applies to someone with far more acceptance as such than Langan has yet to receive. "Self-taught" would be fine, but insufficient, since we're all sort of self-taught on things and to some degree. So "autodidact" seems to best sum up the consensus on our understanding of Langan's approach to learning. Plus, the term is linked to -- it's not like people reading Misplaced Pages don't know how to click on a link to find out what a word means. --Otheus 22:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of the nagging that got "irascible curmudgeon" removed from the Fred G. Sanford page in favour of "irritable." Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. — Athænara ✉ 00:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)