Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Christopher Langan

  1. Jan 25, 2008 #1

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    He's supposedly the "Smartest man in America". I tuned in late to this show and kept asking who this guy was, he's the stupidist contestant they've ever had. I just found out it was Christopher Langen, the Intelligent Design proponent.

    To give you an idea of how dim witted he is, his last question was "In Abbott and Costello's "Who's on first", what is the name of the second baseman? The answers were Who, What, and I don't know. Even if you had never heard of Abbott and Costello, the common nematode would have said "well, the title is "Who's on first, so we know who is not on second". Apparently he is not as smart as a nematode. He had to ask the "mob" for help and the answer "I don't know" was eliminated. That now leaves him with TWO choices Who and What. We know the name of the skit is "who's on first", so we know "who" is on first, that only leaves "what" as the answer. This slow witted ( and believe me he sounds very slow witted) person, unable to see that the answer has already been given to him, then uses another "ask the mob", where 20 out of 23 people said the answer was "what". So he decided to go with the majority.

    This guy was absolutely pathetic on all the answers, which were unusually easy. If you have a chance to see a rerun of this, do it.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 25, 2008 #2

    Kurdt

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What I find amazing about the guy is his documentary on youtube. In it he comes across as very far from being the smartest guy and exceptionally arrogant with it. His ideas are poorly thought out and he constantly tries to confuse with the use of lengthy strings of long words. Yet in the comments there are people that are still defending the fact hes the smartest guy just because they've been told he is. Just goes to show you how willing people are to follow.

    I tried reading his CTMU thing but its just undecipherable and gave up after the 1st page.
     
  4. Jan 25, 2008 #3

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I suspect that the same people who think that he's intelligent are the same ones who think that Seinfeld is funny... :rolleyes:
     
  5. Jan 25, 2008 #4

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    And he was probably well rehearsed for that. Unrehearsed he comes across as a slug.

    I've read parts of it and it's a joke.
     
  6. Jan 25, 2008 #5

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member



    I never knew he was an intelligent design advocate.
    His society does not seem to be very active:

    Perhaps they've run out of peculiar organisms to point at.

    I do like the intelligent design people. They take all the tedium out of finding the most bizarre things in nature. It usually takes me at least 5 minutes to figure out how nature would put together something so complex. I used to have an IQ of around 161, though I've sat in the bar about as long as Mr. Langan has and I think it's about 73 by now. (hic!)

    What was the name of the show btw?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  7. Jan 25, 2008 #6

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Thanks, I'd never paid attention to the spelling.

    Yes, he's paid by the Discovery Institute.

    1 versus 100, I as flipping channels and saw some dimwit called "the smartest man in America", so I had to watch, I thought it was some kind of joke.
     
  8. Jan 25, 2008 #7

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Never heard of it.

    Should we tell them about the following?

     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  9. Feb 21, 2008 #8
    If you know nothing of Abbot and Costello (and what intelligent person knows anything of Abbot and Costello?) why would you assume there is only one "who"? In what way, exactly, is the ctmu "a joke"? Many thanks.
     
  10. Feb 21, 2008 #9
    He ended up winning $250,000 didn't he? That seems pretty good :)
     
  11. Feb 21, 2008 #10
    I have to say I didn't get that from the YT videos at all. I'm not even sure where any of that comes from. He seemed eminently reasonable and even tempered, to me. He seemed to me to be the very definition of unpretentious. He talked like a regular guy. I don't know where you're getting, "lengthy strings of long words". Sorry. I found the ctmu to be indecipherable because my IQ only hovers above average, and I suspect his audience consists of more sophisticated minds. I also find Isaac Newtons, "Principia" to be impenetrable (yes, I know he did much of that on purpose).
     
  12. Feb 21, 2008 #11

    Kurdt

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think the whole crux of the matter is why did he make his CTMU deliberately elusive. I don't think one immediately has a grasp of obscure words once your IQ goes over a certain level. I found it immensely irritating having to look up a word for nearly every sentence. It doesn't take a genius to express ones ideas in an accessible and comprehensive manner.

    The fact that CTMU has failed to be published in any peer reviewed journal speaks for itself.
     
  13. Feb 21, 2008 #12
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Langan



    I almost fell out of my chair.
     
  14. Feb 21, 2008 #13

    dst

    User Avatar

    I had a look through his 56 page bible which may as well have been written in Sentinelese.

    Funny because just earlier I came across this delightful piece: http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

    I think he broke all 6 in the first sentence.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2008
  15. Feb 21, 2008 #14
    I think you guys watch way to much television. :)
     
  16. Feb 21, 2008 #15
    is he making money out of his claims of being the smartest man in America?

    if so, therein lies his genius :biggrin:.

    anyway, he doesn't come off as a complete imbecile to me. he comes off as either a) a clever feller trying to make a quick buck, or b) delusional. I don't doubt that he may have a high IQ or whatever, just his sanity or his motives.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2008
  17. Feb 21, 2008 #16

    Mk

    User Avatar

  18. Feb 21, 2008 #17
    That's interesting. I didn't read anywhere that he'd made ctmu deliberately elusive. Where did you see that?
     
  19. Feb 21, 2008 #18
    I really didn't get a sense that he was dropping 11 dollar vocabulary words unnecessarily. There was denseness to his writing, but that's not the same thing. I didn't pick up pretentiousness or anything derivative, kitsch or contrived.

    I'm wondering where all the complaints are about the tutorials that are impenetrable unless you've had at least 3 or 4 years of advanced math and physics under your belt? If you understand those tutorials, YOU DON'T NEED those tutorials!
     
  20. Feb 21, 2008 #19
    I'm trying to remember if I ever heard him say he was the smartest man in America.
     
  21. Feb 21, 2008 #20

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    He's obviously not the smartest person, a high IQ score means you scored well on an IQ test.

    Vosh, I don't know how you could not see that his work is dripping with so many pretentious words that it is comical.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2008
  22. Feb 21, 2008 #21
    Well he appears on TV shows that present him as such, and propagates those notions. I mean, I understand the media loves to make such statements: other people like Hawking are also introduced using that sort of semi-deifying language, but when Hawking is interviewed, he doesn't spend the whole interview talking about how incredibly smart and clever he is, and how even the greatest thinkers of our past had lowers IQ's than him (like his comments on Einstein and Darwin), instead he talks about his theories and ideas (Einstein and Darwin changed the way we understand the world forever; they didn't need an IQ test to prove how smart they were. What has Mr Lanagan done so far, at his rather mature age, that has come even remotely close to the achievements of true brilliant minds?).

    I'm not saying being arrogant automatically disqualifies his claims of being a genius— many great minds have also had great egos (Newton, I understand, had quite the unbearable temper with anyone who dared disagree with him). Nor am I saying that using "big words" does so. What I'm saying (what I think we're all saying) is that he hasn't yet accomplished anything nearly remarkable enough to give him such boasting rights.

    When he finally decides to unveil to us lesser minds his mathematical formula that proves God exists, then he can boast all he wants and you won't hear a peep from me :rolleyes:
     
  23. Feb 21, 2008 #22
    From youtube "chris langan (part 1)" @ around 3'30" or so
    Much later, in "chris langan (part 2)" right in the begining
    This is hilarious :biggrin:, business genius to the people taking him seriously, comic genius to the others.
     
  24. Feb 21, 2008 #23

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Because he was given the names of the three basemen, he had to chose which of the three was on second base. Are you saying intelligent people don't watch comedy?

    Because it's laughable.

    Here is a good commentary.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1252763&postcount=96
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2008
  25. Feb 21, 2008 #24

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Sounds like one suffering from Asperger's.

    - Warren
     
  26. Feb 21, 2008 #25

    dst

    User Avatar

    But we're not talking about something already established, defined and merely being extended which is the case in those tutorials. Here, it's an attempt to introduce eveyone to his new 'theory', which is a far cry from that. And you would expect it to be very clear, concise and so, not least from "the smartest man in America". Compare the first paragraphs of a translated version of Einstein's seminal paper and his:



    As compared to his abstract (and that, it most surely is :yuck:):


    Arguably one person of those produced more results. Now who drops the $11 words? Now if you read that article I linked to, it attacks exactly that sort of writing - ludicrously dense, abstract, and unnecessarily so. Sure, it's a "theory of everything" but you would expect it to say precisely what he's getting at. GR can be summed up in a sentence - "space and time curve under the influence of gravity" - let's see you do that with his. Here's the difference - in his paper, Einstein uses raw, simple action words - here we have to deal with "information is the currency of perception".


    I wonder what this guy could come up with, paired with the Bogdanovs.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2008
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook