Born to do Math 158 - Off the Handle

In-Sight Publishing

Born to do Math 158 - Off the Handle

Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner

February 22, 2020

[Beginning of recorded material]

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: On the one hand, there is the notion of eggs being expensive and sperm being cheap...

Rosner: ...which is the idea of men being more expendable than women. You have lower impulse control associated with guys. My girlfriend in college was always going through some files at the college library. 

The idea was that the idea of men in this country is true around the world or consistent. Wherever there are guys, there is less impulse control. The action orientation is connected to masculinity in our culture. Guys are expected to do something or want to do something, even if it is wrong.

Guys might crack because of expectations that guys should be successful, creating more pressure on guys. A lot of this stuff is subject to change, as society has been examining ideas of masculinity and femininity. 

You could argue guys might be more comfortable as slackers or society may be comfortable with it than in the 1950s. As a general idea, the expectations and the stereotypes about guys and masculinity put pressure on guys, which generates a range of guy behaviours both good and bad. 

Versus stereotypical female behaviours that are laying back and having things happen like Emily Dickinson with being okay with having a quiet life, it is like you said, 'A guy can knock up a gazillion women. A woman is more precious biologically because a woman has the babymaking technology. It is a huge biological commitment.'

A guy just has to jizz. He can make several women pregnant with one batch. But there isn't someone walking around with a test tube and a turkey baster. Is there another reason for guys losing their shit more than women if that is indeed so?

Jacobsen: Probably two or three things, one, more testosterone than estrogen. Two, the genetics that is preprogramming a set of an interrelated network of reactions along with the testosterone. It has to do with genetics encoding certain types of reactions in proportion to the amount of testosterone and estrogen ratio that men are more likely to have, which, in itself, is being preprogrammed in terms of how much is being produced.

Rosner: There's also the idea that women have a larger corpus callosum, which is a fibre bundle that connects the two hemispheres. One can make an argument from this that women think more holistically - though, it is the wrong word - or globally, and may be less likely to go off half-cocked or less likely to take action without considering the consequences.

But that sounds like something I learned in a class in the 80s; that's probably been or potentially been debunked. I do know the corpus callosum is thicker. I don't know if it has consequences for masculinity and femininity or not.

I don't know if we have covered all the reasons for men losing their shit more than women.

[End of recorded material]

Authors[1]

Rick Rosner

American Television Writer

RickRosner@Hotmail.Com

www.rickrosner.org

(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

In-Sight Publishing

(Updated January 1, 2020)

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:

1. Bold text following “Scott Douglas Jacobsen:” or “Jacobsen:” is Scott Douglas Jacobsen & non-bold text following “Rick Rosner:” or “Rosner:” is Rick Rosner. 
2. Session article conducted, transcribed, edited, formatted, and published by Scott. 
3. Footnotes & in-text citations in the interview & references after the interview. 
4. 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:

1. American Psychological Association. (2010). Citation Guide: APA. Retrieved from http://www.lib.sfu.ca/system/files/28281/APA6CitationGuideSFUv3.pdf. 
2. 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 2012-2020. 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.

Born to do Math 157 - A Thought

In-Sight Publishing

Born to do Math 157 - A Thought

Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner

February 15, 2020

[Beginning of recorded material]

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is a thought? 

Rosner: I think the most straightforward definition or idea of a thought is that when you are thinking. You are aware of a bunch of things simultaneously. Some of these things count as what we understand as thoughts. A thought is just your set of things in mind in a moment.

When my wife takes my mother-in-law our for a meal, my mother-in-law has a habit, that my wife hates, of pointing out fat people. She points out people, "Boy, those people are really heavy." My wife says, "Yes, you don't need to point it out. Just shut up about that."

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Rosner: But seeing somebody heavy and realizing that they are heavy counts as a thought, it is realizing something about something in your current awareness. It doesn't have to be in your current awareness. Somebody could write something down.

A thought can be considered in the form of an equation in linking two things or forming two things, or putting them in a category. You're generally linking two or more things. Even that is subject to not being exactly accurate, you can have a thought about one thing, which isn't really about one thing.

You can see your friend walking down the street. You can think, "There's my friend." You are linking, "My friend," "here", "right now."

Jacobsen: You are walking around. You see someone heavy. You are walking around. You see someone's face. It identifies in another part of your brain. It is your friend's face, not just a face. Then the fireworks set off. It is a distributed-sequential thing.

Rosner: As a process thing, sensory input, in your brain, can include external sense, input from different parts of your brain, putting words to things. You see your friend. You think, "Jeff!" You just linked. The link as formed in your brain as this person you're seeing, and who this person is, and their name. You can recognize without the name.

Basically, thoughts are forming associations between different aspects or things in your current mental arena. I don't know if that is going to be the most durable idea of what a thought is. I think linkages might be kind of essential to the idea of thoughts. 

It is a thought to see your wife. She walks into the room. Your wife is in the room. It is seeing and recognizing her. She is on the couch. She is reading. Those are all thoughts. They are all kind of one thought.

They are all observing and lining using stored knowledge. You recognize that it is your wife. You recognize that she is reading. Another way of looking at thoughts is in conjunction with the current hot theory that brains - their job, maybe their only job according to some people - are meant to prepare you for what comes next moment-to-moment.

They to set you up as best as possible for each subsequent moment, which relies on recognizing what is going on around you, as each moment unfolds. You can be completely unconscious and then by reflex be told what to do by your brain.

There is some recognition going on, even without conscious recognition. Is all this close to a thought?

Jacobsen: I'm not buying it, yet. 

Rosner: Okay, what needs to be further refined? Let's look at it this way without bringing consciousness into it at all. Some aspects of the environment, both external and internal, trigger things, realizing what they are, naming them, acting on them, but sensory input triggers an action, whether physical action or it brings up other things into awareness. 

That triggering and that forming of association counts as thinking. Then you can draw the line, like walking into a read and then watching your wife reading. Is it one or three thoughts? It seems like a bullshitty distinction. 

You are consciously recognizing your wife and the stuff associated with her. It doesn't matter whether you call it one thought or several linked thoughts, or whatever. But thinking, in general, is forming associations, inputs triggering outputs within your brain. 

What we think of as thoughts are things that we don't necessarily express in words when we are thinking them, but that can be expressed in words. You could say something. Say you see your wife walking through the room for a half of a second, you see her reading on the couch reading for half of a second. You can think, "My wife is reading."

Your awareness of that doesn't have to trigger the words in your head. It can still be a thought. But if you are asked to notice what you are thinking, you can describe what you are thinking via short sentences.

"I see my wife," "she is reading," and "she is on the couch." If those are things that happened in your consciousness, then they are thoughts, which are part of one thought. I don't know if drawing distinctions is super helpful because there's a super larger thought that you are in your house. It is a certain time of day.

Of course, your wife is around. She is at home at this time of the day. It is part of this more global awareness if you wanted to completely describe everything that you were aware of, or thinking. It may 2,000 sentences to completely catalogue one moment of awareness. 

But thoughts are just generally like what is in your conscious arena at any given moment. We would have to talk about any unconscious things that you are reacting unconsciously to. Maybe, there is some rough cutoff. 

You put your hand on a hot stove. You pull your hand back, even before you are aware of putting your hand on a hot stove. Maybe, the awareness from the nerves of your hand to the nerves of your spine will be a thought, "Ow, that's freakin' hot." 

But these may or may not count as thoughts. 

[End of recorded material]

Authors[1]

Rick Rosner

American Television Writer

RickRosner@Hotmail.Com

www.rickrosner.org

(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

In-Sight Publishing

(Updated January 1, 2020)

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:

1. Bold text following “Scott Douglas Jacobsen:” or “Jacobsen:” is Scott Douglas Jacobsen & non-bold text following “Rick Rosner:” or “Rosner:” is Rick Rosner. 
2. Session article conducted, transcribed, edited, formatted, and published by Scott. 
3. Footnotes & in-text citations in the interview & references after the interview. 
4. 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:

1. American Psychological Association. (2010). Citation Guide: APA. Retrieved from http://www.lib.sfu.ca/system/files/28281/APA6CitationGuideSFUv3.pdf. 
2. 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 2012-2020. 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.

Born to do Math 156 - Implicit Linking and Thought

In-Sight Publishing

Born to do Math 156 - Implicit Linking and Thought

Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner

February 8, 2020

[Beginning of recorded material]

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: According to Encylopedia Britannica, an idea is an active, determining principle of a thing. Another definition including a formulated thought, which is close to thinking. Whatever is known to supposed about something, in terms of prior knowledge and predictive-hypothetical knowledge.

Rosner: That's still what we were talking about [Ed. off-tape.]. It is the linking of one thing with another thing. "That person has pointy ears," "This coffee tastes like vinegar," my wife cleaned out the coffee machine with vinegar and didn't tell me.

I kept making all this terrible coffee. I didn't know why. Coffee is this thing. Coffee with vinegar is another thing. It is a realization. I would say that linking is an unavoidable part of an idea or a thought. Maybe, that's like seeing a Jeff on the street. There's Jeff.

It is not much of a linking, but it is still a link. Jeff in my awareness right now. You are linking categories and categorizations and labelling items. Everything is hooking things up to other stuff. That's Jeff. That's Jeff right now.

That's Jeff right here. It is just linking stuff. We have talked about the brain being an association engine.

Jacobsen: Yes, in an idea extended to the universe being an associative engine. 

Rosner: Maybe, it is sub-associations. The things your brain needs to do for you to be prepared. Still, there's some implicit linking there, where "car coming at me, right now, here." There's still some contextualizing and some linking. 

You got the realization: car. Then you have associated, linked realizations as to why that's important. I don't think you can characterize thoughts or ideas without the idea of association. 

Jacobsen: Another definition is around the chief meaning.

Rosner: When you have a sentence, obviously, the idea is about what is in the sentence, even if it is trivial.

Jacobsen: By the 17th century, it became thought, plan, or intention. The word intention has the meaning of being used for something. 

Rosner: You can have ideas that are super trivial. I don't know that you need to differentiate between thoughts and ideas. They can be miniscule. I'm looking at this cabinet. It has four knobs. It is an idea, a thought, "It's got four knobs." 

You can link nebulous things that you have definitions of with other things that you have definitions of. You are able to link the things, even if nebulous, with other things that you have linkage about, including knobs and cabinet. 

[End of recorded material]

Authors[1]

Rick Rosner

American Television Writer

RickRosner@Hotmail.Com

www.rickrosner.org

(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

In-Sight Publishing

(Updated January 1, 2020)

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:

1. Bold text following “Scott Douglas Jacobsen:” or “Jacobsen:” is Scott Douglas Jacobsen & non-bold text following “Rick Rosner:” or “Rosner:” is Rick Rosner. 
2. Session article conducted, transcribed, edited, formatted, and published by Scott. 
3. Footnotes & in-text citations in the interview & references after the interview. 
4. 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:

1. American Psychological Association. (2010). Citation Guide: APA. Retrieved from http://www.lib.sfu.ca/system/files/28281/APA6CitationGuideSFUv3.pdf. 
2. 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 2012-2020. 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.

Born to do Math 155 - Fidelity

In-Sight Publishing

Born to do Math 155 - Fidelity

Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner

February 1, 2020

[Beginning of recorded material]

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Okay, so, what is percent fidelity in this regard for the future of brain replication?

Rosner: The ultimate objective for extended human life is replicable consciousness. It renders everything else moot. The various strategies for living long and making your own body not age. Freezing your body, until they can come and fix whatever is wrong with it, all this stuff becomes much less of a desperate gambit or mott. You don't need it if you can move your consciousness around.

Your memories, way of thinking. Your brain, basically, or a duplicate of your brain. A brain that is sufficiently duplicated that it has as much fidelity as your own biological brain does from day to day and month to month. I think that when this technology becomes available.

People will sell it on the basis of what percent it duplicates your thinking and experience with minimal discontinuity. The earliest products probably won't even use this term because the numbers will be so terrible. The earliest products might not even reach 10% fidelity.

We already have something that has some non-zero fidelity, a technology, or a bunch of related technologies. Those are hanging out and talking with people. If you live with someone for 50 years, once you die, your way of thinking, memories, and attitudes are, to some extent, carried on by your close survivors.

In fact, Reformed Judaism have this as the only afterlife. We live on in the memories of others. It is a really terrible afterlife.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Rosner: It is not zero, the fidelity. It is way less than 1%. You're, as a dead person, not getting any conscious experience. Your thoughts and attitudes are carried on while not getting the benefits of being alive anymore. 

You are getting very minimal benefits from those who knew you have a picture of your mental landscape. It is a shitty picture. It is not your consciousness. However, people are already doing stuff with direct brain communications. 

They are developing certain technologies for thinking certain thoughts and a reader will react. You can think stuff and manipulate stuff with your thoughts. It is very imprecise and shitty. Eventually, you will have technology that will allow increasingly direct brain-to-brain communication.

It will super shitty at first. One measure of how shitty is how ridiculous it is to talk about it.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Rosner: If two people decided to have direct brain-to-brain communication without needing speech or other forms of communicating and could, basically, think together, maybe not as a single entity but, as a linked pair of entities, and if you did this long enough with somebody else with sufficient technology, to some extent, some of your thinking would live on. Some of your consciousness would live on, after the person dies.

The percent fidelity would go from 0.0001% to, with this technology, 10% or 12%. Something that is much better than the near-zero that we have right now. Eventually, as we decipher consciousness and bran processes, the fidelity will go to 40% and, eventually, into the 80s.

As we understand how our brains will work better, there will be two indices to consider: the natural fidelity of our brains over time to ourselves, which isn't perfect. I don't even know how to calculate how much less than perfect it is because we lose most of what we experience.

We don't remember most things in our lives. It is unrecallable. An unremarkable lunch from 2006 will not be something to remember. An afternoon spent clipping your toenails for ten minutes. Most daily stuff is not recallable.

Is that a huge ding against our fidelity score? We don't experience it as a ding. We're at home in our brains. We're at home with the incompleteness of or deficiencies of our brains and our thinking. It doesn't bug us that we are losing so much.

Jacobsen: Is that a bug or a feature?

Rosner: It is both. There are people with eidetic memories who can remember everything.

Jacobsen: Curse more than blessing, or blessing more than curse?

Rosner: I think it is just a thing that you have, which is kind of cool. Marilu Henner, the actress on Taxi a million years ago, claims to have an eidetic memory. I think the claim holds up. Because when she is quizzed on stuff, she is good at remembering things. She is good as an actress and adult in the world, and still able to live a normal life as a person. It hasn't made her crazy.

So, people will like to make the claim that it's good that we don't remember everything. But I don't know. I don't think that that claim holds up. At the very least, we want to be better at remembering than we are. 

We will be, as technology improves. As we deal with improved technology, we will have a lot of dumb, stupidly complete, remembering, that will be, "Meh." It will need some more-than-fine-tuning. It may not be ideal an ideal adjunct to our brains.

We'll have to learn to live in conjunction with brain add-ons and brain replication. It is not like things will not get figured out. Things won't ever be settled because technology will keep coming along. We will keep discovering memory schemes. 

When it becomes possible to remember with what fidelity that you want, whatever we become, they will determine what are the optimal levels and strategies of memory, for memory, given the software and the hardware that we will be working with. 

[End of recorded material]

Authors[1]

Rick Rosner

American Television Writer

RickRosner@Hotmail.Com

www.rickrosner.org

(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

In-Sight Publishing

(Updated January 1, 2020)

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:

1. Bold text following “Scott Douglas Jacobsen:” or “Jacobsen:” is Scott Douglas Jacobsen & non-bold text following “Rick Rosner:” or “Rosner:” is Rick Rosner. 
2. Session article conducted, transcribed, edited, formatted, and published by Scott. 
3. Footnotes & in-text citations in the interview & references after the interview. 
4. 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:

1. American Psychological Association. (2010). Citation Guide: APA. Retrieved from http://www.lib.sfu.ca/system/files/28281/APA6CitationGuideSFUv3.pdf. 
2. 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 2012-2020. 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.