Born to do Math 144 - Nice-to-Haves
Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner
November 15, 2019
[Beginning of recorded material]
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What would be something that would be nice to have as an evolved mental function that is not evolved into us?
Rosner: You can look at the stuff that we have evolved for ourselves via apps. An infallible sense of direction would be good. I am always arguing everyone should be forced to take statistics. So, maybe, a more developed understanding of and ability to apply risks.
An ability to find more subtle patterns in big data. This is coming. We won't need this in our brains because we will get it in our apps. You can always say various apps built into your head would be helpful.
Jacobsen: What about perceptual functions?
Rosner: People can always use more power to get social clues and interpersonal clues. Some people are really good at reading other people. That's a good skill to have. It's a good skill. It means that some people will have more partners than other people.
I call it anti-Asperger's. Some schmoozy people, especially where I live in L.A., are at home with asking for more from people and then getting it, because they are able to judge what people are willing to give.
Although, I may be overestimating people's social skills. When I first had this thought, it was before MeToo. What looked liked increased social skill, ten years ago, to me, I've hit on a lot fewer women than people I know.
Some of this I attribute to shyness or fear. Some of this I attributed to being less charming. Now, in the light of MeToo, maybe, I was wrong about that because, maybe, the people who I admired or envied for getting with a bunch of women.
Maybe, they were bigger assholes. Maybe, they were not getting away with anything and the women were thinking the guys were assholes. Maybe, they weren't getting away with as much as I'd thought. But it would be nice - all that aside - to be able to perceive more of what people are thinking.
Jacobsen: H.L. Mencken described many men as having elephantine emotions [Laughing].
Rosner: Do you mean huge and plodding?
Jacobsen: Huge, plodding, blatant, cloddy, just uncouth generally.
Rosner: Yes, I've heard this described in Women's Studies as men having less impulse control.
Jacobsen: What does this mean in a mental context? Why is this happening way more? Are we talking about more sociological reasons or more innate reasons leading to those sociological/sociocultural consequences?
Rosner: Emotions, in the context we're talking about, are judged by action. If someone is like Emily Dickinson shut up in her house, we don't know what emotions she's having compared to somebody who is getting in bar fights, or road rage incidents.
So, we can make an argument that guys are more action-oriented. You can trace this to the frontal lobe dementia. You lose your Superego and act on pure ID to put it in obsolete terms. Guys have a lower threshold to act on what they're feeling.
Jacobsen: Men do develop slower. We know that.
Rosner: You can argue men are generally crappier. Men have less quality to control in a lot of areas.
Jacobsen: You mean this not as a moral judgment, but as a biological descriptor.
Rosner: Men are, you can argue, more disposable. My wife hikes with a bunch of people her age and little older. Like half of their husbands are fucking dead!
Jacobsen: What from, for them?
Rosner: One had a sclerosing disease. He was in a parking garage and had just walked out from pitching a T.V. show and dropped dead that was hardening parts of his body. I take super good control of my body. I just had cancer.
It is a small sample size. When you talk about sex or gender differences, you always run the risk of over-generalizing or making conclusions that are too big on a small sample size, or culturally limited sample sizes. I don't know in general.
Would there be a geometry of lower impulse control? Yes, you could do it, even without a geometry of consciousness of that.
Jacobsen: It would be less integrated geometry. It would be shorter pathways and less integrated.
Rosner: Yes, some people like to argue a thicker corpus callosum in women leads to a more integrated consciousness and a more even-keeled personality. But that's probably over-concluding.
Jacobsen: Will this imply with greater self-control and greater awareness of a situation that women would be better able to conceal emotions better in terms of propriety and social dynamics?
Rosner: In our world, it is harder to determine. Women are smaller and weaker than men. A smaller and weaker person will be more prudent. If the average woman was 6'1" and weighed 185lbs, would women be as asshole-ish as men? There's too much going on there.
There's too much cultural loading to reach any super-definitive conclusions. There's, at least, one member or former member of the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team who has been dinged more than once for spousal abuse.
She's a big, strong, angry, at times, person. So, is that a brain thing or a hierarchy thing? Too many variables.
[End of recorded material]Rosner: You can look at the stuff that we have evolved for ourselves via apps. An infallible sense of direction would be good. I am always arguing everyone should be forced to take statistics. So, maybe, a more developed understanding of and ability to apply risks.
An ability to find more subtle patterns in big data. This is coming. We won't need this in our brains because we will get it in our apps. You can always say various apps built into your head would be helpful.
Jacobsen: What about perceptual functions?
Rosner: People can always use more power to get social clues and interpersonal clues. Some people are really good at reading other people. That's a good skill to have. It's a good skill. It means that some people will have more partners than other people.
I call it anti-Asperger's. Some schmoozy people, especially where I live in L.A., are at home with asking for more from people and then getting it, because they are able to judge what people are willing to give.
Although, I may be overestimating people's social skills. When I first had this thought, it was before MeToo. What looked liked increased social skill, ten years ago, to me, I've hit on a lot fewer women than people I know.
Some of this I attribute to shyness or fear. Some of this I attributed to being less charming. Now, in the light of MeToo, maybe, I was wrong about that because, maybe, the people who I admired or envied for getting with a bunch of women.
Maybe, they were bigger assholes. Maybe, they were not getting away with anything and the women were thinking the guys were assholes. Maybe, they weren't getting away with as much as I'd thought. But it would be nice - all that aside - to be able to perceive more of what people are thinking.
Jacobsen: H.L. Mencken described many men as having elephantine emotions [Laughing].
Rosner: Do you mean huge and plodding?
Jacobsen: Huge, plodding, blatant, cloddy, just uncouth generally.
Rosner: Yes, I've heard this described in Women's Studies as men having less impulse control.
Jacobsen: What does this mean in a mental context? Why is this happening way more? Are we talking about more sociological reasons or more innate reasons leading to those sociological/sociocultural consequences?
Rosner: Emotions, in the context we're talking about, are judged by action. If someone is like Emily Dickinson shut up in her house, we don't know what emotions she's having compared to somebody who is getting in bar fights, or road rage incidents.
So, we can make an argument that guys are more action-oriented. You can trace this to the frontal lobe dementia. You lose your Superego and act on pure ID to put it in obsolete terms. Guys have a lower threshold to act on what they're feeling.
Jacobsen: Men do develop slower. We know that.
Rosner: You can argue men are generally crappier. Men have less quality to control in a lot of areas.
Jacobsen: You mean this not as a moral judgment, but as a biological descriptor.
Rosner: Men are, you can argue, more disposable. My wife hikes with a bunch of people her age and little older. Like half of their husbands are fucking dead!
Jacobsen: What from, for them?
Rosner: One had a sclerosing disease. He was in a parking garage and had just walked out from pitching a T.V. show and dropped dead that was hardening parts of his body. I take super good control of my body. I just had cancer.
It is a small sample size. When you talk about sex or gender differences, you always run the risk of over-generalizing or making conclusions that are too big on a small sample size, or culturally limited sample sizes. I don't know in general.
Would there be a geometry of lower impulse control? Yes, you could do it, even without a geometry of consciousness of that.
Jacobsen: It would be less integrated geometry. It would be shorter pathways and less integrated.
Rosner: Yes, some people like to argue a thicker corpus callosum in women leads to a more integrated consciousness and a more even-keeled personality. But that's probably over-concluding.
Jacobsen: Will this imply with greater self-control and greater awareness of a situation that women would be better able to conceal emotions better in terms of propriety and social dynamics?
Rosner: In our world, it is harder to determine. Women are smaller and weaker than men. A smaller and weaker person will be more prudent. If the average woman was 6'1" and weighed 185lbs, would women be as asshole-ish as men? There's too much going on there.
There's too much cultural loading to reach any super-definitive conclusions. There's, at least, one member or former member of the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team who has been dinged more than once for spousal abuse.
She's a big, strong, angry, at times, person. So, is that a brain thing or a hierarchy thing? Too many variables.
Authors[1]
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
Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing
Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.Com
(Updated September 28, 2016)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen founded In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal and In-Sight Publishing. He authored/co-authored some e-books, free or low-cost. If you want to contact Scott: Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.com.
Endnotes
[1] 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
License
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.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2019. 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment