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 [email protected], or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn, or see him on YouTube. Here we talk about as two friends, get yourself a smart friend too!
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the most difficult IQ test you have ever tried?
Rick Rosner: I forget the name of it but the deal is like there was a period when we first started talking and a few years before that where I was taking IQ tests on the regular, these super hard ones and kind of regularly spending over a period of a couple months or more; more than 100 hours on a test. And I was getting frustrated with this because it’s just a huge waste of time and then I ran into this test that seemed to be the hardest fucking test I’d ever seen and I forget the name of it, I could probably look it up but it was attractive to me because it had a super high ceiling that went into the 240s or something. Some of the Cooijman’s tests go into the 240s but nobody can ever reach those levels. I know from having taken a bunch of his tests; he’s pretty good at norming the tests and like I think historically a couple people have had happy accidents where maybe an early misnorming of the test allowed somebody to get close to or more than 200 on one of his tests but usually by the time enough people have taken the test… he’s one of the most legit high IQ test builders. So, there might be a test he has where you could score 240, 250 but you’re not going to get there because it’s just fucking impossible for humans.
But I saw this other test that had some like super high ceiling and I thought maybe it was worth a shot but I wanted to try an experiment; the two heads are better than one experiment, where I knew that back in the days when the mega was still in use, a team from MIT, several guys had teamed up and gotten a really high score on the test; just gang tackled it. Of course they were disqualified once it was found that they were more than one guy but I thought that was an interesting strategy and so I wanted to try this test. I didn’t want to invest 200 hours in it. I wanted to still see if it was crackable via gang tackling it. So, I approached somebody I know who has a proven track record on these things and said, “Do you want to just take like a quick shot at this and see if two people working on a test can crack it faster?” So, we did it and it wasn’t super helpful because you’d hope that one person would find certain problems easier or that two different people would find different problems easier and together you’d be able to knock out a bunch of problems but that’s not the way fucking IQ tests work.
The easy problems were easy problems and you and whoever you’re working with are going to solve those quickly and then the hard problems are fucking hard and it’s going to take some messing around but anyway between the two of us we solved enough of the problems. We thought to submit answers to the guy and we built a name that was a combination of both our names and we sent it in and the guy writes back and all excited, “You got a really high score.” We got a score of that wasn’t a world record but it was like in the 180s or something and we go, “That’s great but you should know that we tried an experiment and we wondered if two people could track a super hard test” and the guy was heartbroken and traumatized. The guy I think is probably on the spectrum and this seemed like a monstrous violation of the social contract with him. We’re like “No, we weren’t trying to lie to you or anything, we just wanted to see.” Anyway, he was super sad and pissed and that test was so fucking hard that we were the only people who ever submitted answers to it because people would just take one look at it and go well this is fucking impossible.
Jacobsen: [Laughing] that’s fucking hilarious.
Rosner: It was kind of a bad time all around.
Jacobsen: This reflects a lot of the personal history for you because you do things to break rules, then you’re like a sociopath of the conscience; you’re like a paradox. You do this all your life; this is your life.
Rosner: Well, yeah I have some sociopathic tendencies.
Jacobsen: But then you feel guilty and then you tattle on yourself.
Rosner: Well, kind of, maybe yeah.
Jacobsen: You’ve had some interesting experiences, like your fake name incident where you confessed to Carole. You also wrote articles for the Mega Society, discussing your desire not to be perceived as racist, partly because of potential future repercussions. This seems to be a recurring theme in your actions.
Rosner: In the test scenario, we weren’t trying to deceive anyone for long. We always planned to reveal the truth. We were curious about the reaction if we submitted it as two people, though we ended up offending the recipient. This wasn’t like the Eric Hart situation.
Jacobsen: You’ve always been upfront, even when you had a significant following on Twitter. You admitted to buying followers.
Rosner: Yes.
Jacobsen: This honesty is a major aspect of your personality. It’s consistent across different areas of your life and in various relationships. It seems to be a key characteristic of yours.
Rosner: My high school friend, Dave Schuchter, summed it up well. He said there’s the right way, and then there’s the Rosner way.
Jacobsen: [Laughing] That’s true. In our many-year working relationship, I’ve noticed that about you. It’s one reason I enjoy collaborating with you. You’re straightforward, you simplify complex ideas, and you have a grasp of both ordinary life and high-IQ circles. You’ve put yourself in diverse situations, from being a bouncer to a stripper and a nude model, to understand different perspectives. This unique approach has had both positive and negative consequences for you.
Rick Rosner: I have to give credit to Carol in all of this. We’ve been together since 1986, which is over 35 years now. I can imagine alternate paths my life could have taken, possibly with someone who might have been a bit impressed by my credentials. That could have made some aspects of life easier, like having someone who believed my stories without question. For instance, I remember this incident where a guy crashed into me outside a gym. He was clearly an actor trying to use his persuasive skills to gaslight me about the accident. I could tell he was pretending and later confirmed he was a minor actor. I imagined he had someone at home who believed in and supported his aspirations, no matter what.
Carol is quite the opposite. She challenges me; I really have to prove my points with her. She’s not easily swayed or impressed. Occasionally, we watch Jeopardy, and I might answer a question that no one else gets, but Carol’s reaction is often subdued. She knows my knowledge in trivia and quizzes has led us into some less-than-ideal situations. So with Carol, I don’t get any praise that I haven’t truly earned, which can be frustrating. I used to fantasize about having a partner who was overly impressed with my intelligence, rewarding me for it in extravagant ways. But in reality, that wouldn’t have been beneficial for personal growth.
In recent years, especially since I started receiving my pension, Carol has been more tolerant of my quirks. She allows me a bit more leeway now that there’s financial stability, regardless of my productivity.
Jacobsen: In the high IQ world, do you think most people believe their publicly listed IQs accurately reflect their true intelligence?
Rosner: It’s hard to say for everyone, but I can share some unique cases. There’s Mike from Florida, who regularly contacted me, insisting he should be admitted to the Mega Society. He believed a childhood accident impaired his true intellectual potential. Then there’s the individual who sued Kevin Langdon, claiming IQ testing was akin to unlicensed mental therapy. These are extreme cases, of course. More commonly, you have people like Chris, who views high IQ as a potential indicator of untapped talent rather than a definitive measure of intelligence.
Jacobsen: Are you referring to Chris C.?
Rosner: Yes, but let’s not use his full name. He prefers a more discreet association with the IQ community. He recognizes that high IQ can identify potential but is cautious about the more controversial aspects of IQ.
Jacobsen: Can you elaborate on these ‘icky messy aspects’ of IQ?
Rosner: Well, the high IQ community often deals with contentious issues like the implications of IQ in societal and personal contexts. There’s a fine line between using IQ as a tool for identifying talent and it becoming a source of unjustified elitism or a way to unfairly judge others. It’s a complex field with both beneficial and problematic aspects.
Rosner: The fields of statistics and intelligence measurement, which have developed together over the last century, are unfortunately intertwined with racism. Historically, you couldn’t delve into these areas without encountering racism, especially from the 1930s to the 1970s. For instance, Pearson, known for the correlation coefficient, is accused of being racist. Many early IQ tests and statistical analyses were conducted with the intent to prove the superiority of one race over others, which is deeply problematic. These assumptions were often flawed, as seen in early army IQ tests that included culturally biased questions. The most abhorrent aspect of this is eugenics, where such data was used to justify sterilization or worse.
Jacobsen: In your experience, who’s the smartest person you’ve ever encountered?
Rosner: Chris, whom we mentioned earlier, is incredibly intelligent in a subtle way. Then there’s Jimmy Kimmel and his family. They’re not just highly intelligent; they’re also remarkably well-adjusted, which is rare. Another person who stands out is Bill Simmons. He’s a brilliant sports writer who was one of the first to recognize and cater to an audience interested in various aspects of pop culture, not just sports. He successfully integrated this into his writing, creating a media empire with projects like HBO’s ’30 for 30′. He’s incredibly smart and has a broad range of normal interests.
To a large extent, having normal interests can often overshadow one’s intelligence in the public eye. This was the case with Bill Simmons and the Kimmels, particularly Jimmy. For instance, in ‘The Man Show’, which Jimmy co-hosted, the program ended each episode with them drinking beer. The majority of the audience probably saw it as a show featuring guys being guys, with girls on trampolines, rather than a show hosted by two geniuses. Adam Corolla, the co-host, is also highly intelligent.
Jacobsen: Their approach to the show was essentially to satirize typical male obsessions.
Rosner: Yes, it was quite tongue-in-cheek, aiming to entertain men with its fun and slightly risqué content. At the same time, it was meant to appeal to women by highlighting the absurdity of male and, to some extent, female behavior. It was a commentary on gender roles but so embedded in gender stereotypes that many viewers might not have seen it that way.
I believe Adam and Jimmy left the show because they were being shortchanged by the production company and had more lucrative opportunities elsewhere. They left after four seasons, and the show’s fifth season, led by Joe Rogan and Doug Stanhope, missed the original essence and leaned more towards misogyny. The early seasons of ‘The Man Show’, under Jimmy and Adam, had a certain subtle genius. Jimmy, in particular, is an incredibly smart individual who genuinely enjoys interacting with people. Among late-night hosts, he probably enjoys the company and laughter of his guests more than anyone else. Letterman, while a genius in the medium, often came across as somewhat irritable and less enthusiastic about the interaction.
In my experience, I’ve encountered some incredibly smart people. Jimmy’s brother Jonathan, for instance, is an excellent librettist, showcasing his intellect in the realm of musical theater. Their whole family has this streak of unique intelligence. For example, Jimmy’s grandfather once sculpted ‘The Last Supper’ out of modeling clay using muppets, just because he felt like it. It’s an extraordinary family trait. Then there’s Uncle Frank, whom Jimmy adored, primarily because he always provided genuine, straightforward reactions, despite not being particularly bright.
Jacobsen: Who’s the least intelligent person you’ve ever met?
Rosner: It’s challenging to pinpoint the ‘dumbest’ person because intelligence varies so much, and it’s not always about sheer cognitive ability. For example, while volunteering with developmentally disabled individuals, I met a person named Keith, reported to have an IQ of 25. Yet, even Keith showed signs of practical intelligence, understanding the concept of reward for actions like going to the restroom. Another individual, despite significant communication challenges, demonstrated surprising knowledge by correctly identifying and spelling ‘metallic’ in reference to my jacket. This encounter was particularly striking because it defied my expectations.
I also remember driving a van with one of the individuals from the group home who had a remarkable understanding of the vehicle’s mechanics. In that house, there was also Alonzo Clemens, a savant with an incredible ability to sculpt animals from memory, capturing every detail accurately. These experiences have led me to question the notion of ‘essential dumbness’ in people.
In bars, I’ve encountered some pretty uninformed or unwise individuals, but no one specifically stands out as the least intelligent. I do recall meeting someone who could vomit easily, which is unusual because for most people, including myself, vomiting is a strenuous and exhausting process. But this person seemed to do it with little to no effort, which was quite memorable in its own right.
I recall meeting a person who, oddly enough, was the easiest at vomiting that I’ve ever encountered. He was an alcoholic, and due to his frequent drinking to the point of sickness, he had become accustomed to vomiting. One time, as we were conversing, he casually turned his head, vomited effortlessly onto the floor, and then continued his sentence as if nothing had happened. While I can’t say who the least intelligent person I’ve met is, I certainly remember this guy as the one who could vomit the easiest.
Jacobsen: Who is the most virtuous person you’ve met?
Rosner: That’s a tough one! Public school teachers come to mind. Now, some enter the profession seeking an easier job, but teaching is actually quite demanding. I remember back in 1986 in Albuquerque, teachers were paid poorly, around two thousand dollars a month. Despite this, there were teachers who were genuinely passionate and committed. They loved teaching, were skilled at it, enjoyed interacting with students, and genuinely wanted to improve their students’ knowledge and lives. People like Mr. Talamonti, Mr. Ragosa, Mrs. Light, and Mrs. Goldner – these teachers, to me, embody a kind of saintliness. Of course, this is just an immediate thought; given more time, I might think of others.
Jacobsen: Who’s the most morally questionable person you’ve known or met?
Rosner: I haven’t really known truly evil people, more like individuals who were simply unpleasant or took shortcuts in life. My stepdad’s mother, though, might fit the description if all the stories about her are accurate. She was described as mean and vindictive to a soap opera level. She apparently brought a lot of unhappiness into my stepdad’s and mom’s lives with her relentless and spiteful behavior. However, I only interacted with her superficially and knew about her nastiness secondhand and thirdhand. She never directly mistreated me, so my understanding of her character comes from others’ experiences.
Then there was Randy Stevenson, a bar manager where I worked. He was quite a character, notorious for his questionable actions. He once fired me for missing a meeting that I actually attended. The issue was that I was too efficient at catching fake IDs, which was costing the bar money – they paid $10 for each one caught, and I was exceptionally good at it. Stevenson seemed to have grown tired of this and sought a reason to let me go.
Another person who irks me is Michael Davies, currently the producer of Jeopardy, but also involved with Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. I had an unpleasant experience with him which led to a lawsuit. The show asked me a flawed question, and despite their assurances of rectifying the mistake, they repeatedly failed to do so. Although these individuals aren’t necessarily evil, they show a certain laziness in doing the right thing. Stevenson, for instance, despite having a pregnant girlfriend at home, was involved with waitresses at the bar where he worked. It’s more about everyday irresponsibility than outright malevolence.
Jacobsen: As we wrap up, who would you say is the hardest working person you’ve ever met?
Rosner: Well, Jimmy Kimmel certainly comes to mind. He’s incredibly dedicated and hardworking. I, too, can be extremely hardworking, especially when I’m in a phase of intense focus. And then there’s you – you are remarkably hardworking. You’re currently managing 110-hour weeks, and I know you’ve juggled multiple jobs simultaneously. Your writing output is astounding. You’ve likely written millions of words over the years – averaging around two articles a day for various publications. If you did the math, it would probably reveal that you’ve produced the equivalent of over a hundred substantial books throughout your career. That’s a testament to your incredible work ethic and dedication.
Kimmel has been incredibly hardworking, especially in the early days of his Late Night Show. He was so dedicated that he would often get only about four hours of sleep a night, managing around 500 emails daily. This intense schedule led to him being extremely tired, and he initially thought he had narcolepsy. It turns out it was more due to his heavy workload, which he jokingly referred to as ‘getting four hours of sleep at night answering 500 emails a day-elepsy.’ To combat this, he was taking a medication, possibly Adderall, which was prescribed for what he believed was narcolepsy. Eventually, someone, likely Molly, his head writer and now wife, had to convince him to stop taking it.
Kimmel’s intelligence, focus, and attention to detail are remarkable. He has a keen eye for the quality of content on his show, and he particularly enjoys it when the audience is completely fooled by a fake news story, thinking it to be real. For instance, during the Sochi Olympics, he aired a segment with a wolf supposedly wandering the halls of the Olympic athletes’ hotel. This story went viral, with many people believing it to be true, which delighted Kimmel.
One notable example of his meticulous nature involved a voice-over (VO) for a segment. He could discern that the person doing the VO was standing instead of sitting, which didn’t match the video content. He insisted on it being redone with the person sitting down to make it sound more authentic. His ability to notice such minute details and his insistence on perfection, especially when enhanced by the focus brought on by Adderall, show his exceptional dedication to creating the best possible content for his show.
Jimmy Kimmel doesn’t receive enough recognition for his significant impact on Late Night TV. While perhaps not as transformative as David Letterman, who revitalized a genre that had been stagnant under Johnny Carson for 30 years, Kimmel has certainly made his mark. Besides Letterman and possibly Steve Allen, who originally crafted the Late Night format, Kimmel has significantly altered the landscape of Late Night television. However, he often doesn’t get the credit he deserves, partly because he is one of several “Jimmys” in the Late Night scene.
Regarding my appearance on “Moment of Zen” when Jon Stewart hosted “The Daily Show,” yes, that was after my loss on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire,” which I subsequently sued. My job with Jimmy Kimmel wasn’t a result of that incident. In fact, Kimmel, being the mensch that he is, helped me get hired at ABC, the network I was suing. He believed my partner and I could contribute effectively to “The Late Night Show,” based on our previous work on “Crank Yankers” and “The Man Show.”
As for Jon Stewart, my involvement with him was somewhat separate. Before my “Moment of Zen” appearance, I wrote for one of the Grammy shows he hosted, contributing jokes and other content. It’s a small world in this industry; Jimmy’s agent is also Jon Stewart’s and Carson Daly’s agent, and was somewhat my agent too, though my role in the industry is relatively minor compared to these big names.
Jacobsen: When I was trying to get the interview with you originally, you were working with Jimmy Kimmel. Then I got the interview because you informed me that you lost your job. Then we started working together. What is that period between first request and not accepting and second request and accepted?
Rosner: That period was filled with dread and cautious optimism that really was extinguished by more dread because I kind of semi realized that some people might be legendary in the field of Late Night; Dino Stamatopoulos, I don’t know, I mean there are people who are well known in the field of late Night for being brilliant. It’s not one of those people. It probably helps if you come from stand-up or some other way that people can see. I was kind of known for just being borderline which is not entirely fair, I was perfectly adequate but I was sold as… I don’t want to go into the whole fucking thing but even though I was fine, I wasn’t like shiningly brilliant. I’m really good at the shit but I wouldn’t be a starter if late night writing were the NBA. I’d be a seventh or an eighth man. I’d come in towards the end of the first quarter to spell the starters. So, I’m still fucking elite, I’m still one of the top few hundred comedy writers in the country but I’m not in the top you know 50 most brilliant motherfuckers.
So, I didn’t get hired for any fucking thing and people wanted me to write a spec script and I didn’t want to fucking do that. So, I was hopeful that maybe something would come up but it’s been eight years and something is still possibly coming up but it’s been fucking eight years.
In our discussions, we’ve touched on the tendency of high IQ personalities to dive into obsessive rabbit holes. Currently, I find myself deeply engaged in the world of micro mosaics. Carol, my wife, has a fondness for them, and I’ve grown quite passionate about acquiring and restoring these intricate pieces. I often find pieces that, due to damage or neglect, are available at a fraction of their pristine value. I invest many hours meticulously restoring them to the best of my ability, and the results are usually quite pleasing. Carol then showcases them on her Instagram.
Carol’s mother, who is experiencing early memory loss and has a penchant for arts and crafts, seemed like she might enjoy mosaic-making. So, we’ve been collaboratively working on mosaic projects. We’ve completed a boxer dog mosaic and are now working on a cat, which is based on a photograph and is quite realistic. I’ve become somewhat obsessed with executing this cat mosaic kit to the highest possible standard. When I visit Carol’s mom, we work on the simpler parts of the mosaic together, but I handle the more intricate work. This involves filing down tiles to precise sizes, sometimes as small as a millimeter square, which often results in me filing away the top layer of skin on my fingers.
I’ve devoted an extraordinary amount of time—perhaps 30 to 50 hours—and we’re only about halfway through this project. The mosaic is turning out impressively well for a DIY kit meant for kids or extremely bored adults. But this raises the question: why am I so fixated on getting every tiny detail perfect on this relatively trivial project? It’s an illustration of the kind of obsessive focus that can characterize individuals with high IQs, sometimes leading them to pour excessive energy into tasks with limited practical outcomes.
Jacobsen: What do you think about people who score higher on these tests than you?
Rosner: I don’t know, they’re doing the same…
Jacobsen: People like Evangelos.
Rosner: I think they worked hard and they also got lucky that they found a test that would allow them to score higher. I’m always looking for that test and a couple times I’ve gotten lucky and found a test that had like a high enough ceiling and that meshed with my patience and abilities and I was able to crank out a score in the 190s. It’s the same with them; they found a test that may have been in its early version. Generally with tests, the norms start out high like somebody thinks this is a test that can measure up to an IQ of 210 and so you take the test and you do really well and you might get a score back in the 180s or 190s because you’re one of the first 12 people who took it and then another 20 people take it and the test is renormed and maybe the score you got gets lowered by three points or so because the creator of the test if that creator is being honest, he sees that people are getting scores that are higher than you’d expect based on their performance on other tests. So, he renorms the test and that 193 you got gets lowered down to a 190 after a year or when another 20 couple dozen people have taken the test. It’s all the roughly the same deal. It’s people who are good at this shit and who have the patience to do it take a test and they put in the necessary effort and ingenuity and they get a really high score.
They’re psychologically, I don’t know, you’ve talked to Evangelos. I assume that he doesn’t wear desperation on his sleeve that he’s a smart guy who enjoys puzzles and he’s like “I’ll take this on. I’ll spend like an hour a day on it for three months and we’ll and see where it takes me in terms of getting correct answers” I assume he’s a reasonable guy, I don’t know. I mean he’s a professional psychiatrist and stuff. So I assume he’s got a whole life where he might be approaching IQ tests as a pleasurable hobby rather than an obsession. So, maybe other people have scored high on these tests. I know like there was recently that Cooijman’s high IQ competition where I took third and whatshisface took first.
Jacobsen: Heinrich Siemens took first. However, he scored 195 on the first norming; and on the later norming it went down to 190.
Rosner: So, I was talking about that norms generally declined by a few points but Heinrich Siemens, a reasonable guy with I’m sure some kind of complete life; a family and job and all that shit, I believe started on this test, he picked it up like five years ago and worked on it for a while and then set it aside because “Eh, it’s a fucking IQ test.” And then this IQ contest is announced with a deadline using this test like if you could turn in the answers to this test by I think the end of like 2020 like December 31st or some shit last year; now he’s got a deadline. He’s like “well huh, it’s a contest and I’d already worked on this test five years ago. I should take another look at it.” So, five years ago he’d probably put in 50 hours and solved 60 percent of the problems. Now he sees it’s a contest, he’s got three months to see how much farther he can go. He solves the remaining 40 percent of the problems and he solves half of them, turns it in and wins the contest, gets a super high score.
You’ve interviewed us both at the same time or back and forth and seem like a very reasonable person and he just did what a reasonable super smart person who likes puzzles would do. He fucking picked it up, messed with it, put it down, came back to it when he had a reason to do it like he thought he could do well in this contest, messed with it some more to a reasonable extent I think, probably didn’t go crazy and just put in another 50-60 hours on it over three months which is averaging less than an hour a day like a healthy person would, and did well.
Jacobsen: How does the Mega Society hold significance for you?
Rosner: My introduction to the Mega Society dates back to around 1985 or 1986. At that time, my perspective was somewhat skewed, primarily focused on whether this could aid in my romantic endeavors. I came across an extremely challenging IQ test – previously, I had achieved notable scores on another such test, the Kevin Langdon test, which I believe was featured in Omni magazine, likely around 1980. I attempted this test, and my performance ranked me second among those who had taken it when it appeared in Omni. This nearly led to a television appearance, but I inadvertently sabotaged that opportunity by presenting myself unfavorably to the talent scout for a CBS morning show, a misstep I regret.
Initially, my interest in the Mega Society was driven by a hope that it might increase my chances of finding a romantic partner. I entertained the notion of meeting Marilyn Savant, imagining that my physical fitness and intelligence might appeal to her. I reached out to her, inquiring about joining the Mega Society and suggesting a date, but she declined my membership request and didn’t address the latter proposition.
Apart from these personal aspirations, the Mega Society has had a significant impact on my life. I met Chris through this association, who played a pivotal role in encouraging me to take on the role of editor for the Mega Society Journal. This period marked a positive shift in my life; I became more focused and responsible. Concurrently, I began to find success in television writing, a career that spanned from 1987 to around 2013 or 2014. My involvement with the Mega Society coincided with and contributed to this professional growth.
In conclusion, the Mega Society represents not just a personal journey of maturation and professional achievement, but also the value of connecting with like-minded individuals, something I admittedly could be more diligent about maintaining.
Jacobsen: What are Chris’s thoughts, as a professional physicist, on Informational Cosmology (IC)?
Rosner: Chris likely adopts a demographic or statistical perspective on IC. He probably acknowledges that there might be some merit to it, but realistically, the odds are not in its favor, considering historical precedents. Most individuals who propose independent theories in this field haven’t made significant breakthroughs. There are only a few exceptions like Newton with universal gravitation, Einstein with general and special relativity, and to some extent, either Gamow or his partner, who significantly advanced the Big Bang theory. Typically, those working alone in this area are seen as somewhat eccentric.
He’s aware of my intelligence, of course, but he remains optimistic yet skeptical about my work. He understands the ease with which one can veer into fanciful or unfounded theories. This discussion might be better suited for another session, as we have been conversing for quite some time now.
In a future discussion, I’d like to delve into the possibility that the true nature of quantum mechanics has been largely overlooked. My hypothesis is that quantum mechanics represents the mathematics and physics of incomplete information. The true focus of this information might have been missed by many. As I mentioned in our previous conversation, by the time information theory emerged, the mathematical framework and a substantial amount of the phenomenology of quantum mechanics were already well-established.
***
If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project and want a deeper connection with our community, please join us as a Premium Member today.
Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.
—
Photo credit: Rick Rosner and Lance Richlin.