Skip to content

Ask A Genius (or Two): Conversation with Erik Haereid and Rick Rosner (Part Four)

October 22, 2018

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 18.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Fourteen)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: October 22, 2018

Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2019

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 6,379

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract 

Rick Rosner and I conduct a conversational series entitled Ask A Genius on a variety of subjects through In-Sight Publishing on the personal and professional website for Rick. Rick exists on the World Genius Directory listing as the world’s second highest IQ at 192 based on several ultra-high IQ tests scores developed by independent psychometricians. Erik Haereid earned a score at 185, on the N-VRA80. Both scores on a standard deviation of 15. A sigma of ~6.13 for Rick – a general intelligence rarity of 1 in 2,314,980,850 – and ~5.67 for Erik – a general intelligence rarity of 1 in 136,975,305. Of course, 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. This amounts to a joint interview or conversation with Erik Haereid, Rick Rosner, and myself.

Keywords: actuarial science, America, Erik Haereid, Norway, Rick Rosner, statistics, Scott Douglas Jacobsen.

Ask A Genius (or Two): Conversation with Erik Haereid and Rick Rosner (Part Four)[1],[2]

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: With a moderate pivot from good and evil, and morality, into religion and theology, what defines religion to each of you? What defines theology to each of you?

Within the definitions given, and in general, what seems reasonable and unreasonable in theology and religion? What seems true and false in theology and religion? What seems functional and dysfunctional in theology and religion?

Rick Rosner: The problem with theology and religion in general: it was designed to answer questions via making up stuff that were not yet answerable throughout history by actual understanding of how the world worked.

Religion has been and is a comfort. It has been a means of exercising social control and concentrating power. It contains a lot of guesses about the nature of things that have turned out, as we have learned more, not to be true.

It does not mean that you have to throw out the entire exercise. Because, to some extent, theologizing and building religions. That is practicing philosophy. It is just that philosophy, especially with it is theological, eventually turns out to be disproven.

On the other hand, as we have recently talked about, there is no guarantee that what we believe as supposedly scientific objective people will not be undermined by discoveries in the future.

I have been saying a lot, lately, that cold random universe is a misunderstanding and will be undermined by an order-based universe. A universe that where everything that exists and emerges from increasing order rather than the universe playing out as a kind of random bunch of collisions among particles bouncing off each other.

Who knows what philosophical implications will be of an order-based universe? But the older religions, the book, Homo Deus, talked about some of the reasons for the way that the religions of the time meshed with the economic and social structures of the time to reinforce them, to help things function smoothly.

That the monotheistic religions, where Man in God’s image, functions great for a farming society, where we have to believe that we have souls, but we cannot believe that animals have souls because that is too brutal.

Because look at what we do to animals, Man being created in the image of God and everything else being created for use by Man helps agricultural societies function. Then the earlier gods with dozens of gods and spirits and stuff.

Those were helpful in pre-literate periods, where those gods were probably more improvised. It did not matter because no one wrote anything down yet, because there was not language yet – 60,000-70,000 years ago.

So, I like the argument the author makes in the book. Religion is a tool of its era. Each type of religion is a tool of its era to support or provide mental buttressing and societal buttressing for the necessary structures of that society.

But most of religions guesses about the nature of things have been wrong except in the most generous, general terms. It would be weird to think that everything was wrong until now we have science and then we are right about everything.

That seems deluded, arrogant, and counter historical. At the same time, we have all this feedback that we are getting things right because science is so effective at manipulating the world.

So, it is a mix. Where lots of evidence that science is correct, lots of historical evidence that our beliefs at any point in time will be disproven later, my best guess is that the specifics of science, most of them, will survive.

There are definitely 100 or so elements made of protons, electrons, and neutrons. All that is not getting thrown out. It is not some made up a belief system that will be overthrown 200 years from now.

What might get overthrown are the philosophical underpinnings why science works and math works, there’s always the chance that what we perceive as protons, neutrons, and electrons will get tweaked to the point that we barely recognize the later versions that people in the 1930s had a hard time adjusting to the quantum mechanical versions of the elements that make up the world.

Einstein famously hated the probabilistic nature of Quantum Mechanics. He worked hard to overthrow it. 90 years later, we are kind of okay with it. In the ‘70s, there was an ad for a Palm Olive Liquid, which was a dish soap that was emerald green.

It was supposed to be kind to your hands. So, there is a whole series of ads about Mash the Manicurist.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Rosner: She would talk about how Palm Olive is gentle on your hands. The housewife she is talking to in the nail salon says, “Oh, psha!” Mash would always say, “Well, you’re soaking in it!”

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Rosner: The woman would look down and her fingers were in this green liquid making them all nice.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Rosner: It is kind of what Quantum Mechanics is like. We have kind of been soaking in it culturally for almost a century now. What made people crazy in the 1920s and 30s, people say, “Oh, alright.”

Nobody is freaking out about a single photon being able to travel through more than a single slit at a time. We have plenty of freak-outs to come, philosophically, as we move into the future.

One thing that is coming is the era of big data and the discovery of previously unrecognized relationships among aspects of the world that we could not find out because our brains are too small, and our data processing apparatuses are too primitive.

We will get hit with a bunch of new relationships to try to understand. Also, we will get hit with a bunch of black box relationships that will be tough to understand because the correlations will be made within systems that we cannot get at.

With the handiest example being, all the sudden: AI schema that has made computers the unbeatable champions of Chess and Go. We do not know what principles they have developed within their architecture.

We do not know what algorithms that are working off. I think there is a similar thing happening with Google Translate. It has developed a metalanguage within itself. That is not any human language but facilitates the translation among human languages.

That is a big scary black box deal. We will have our big data apparatuses. They will be coming up with all sorts of relationships and discovering new aspects of the world, and correlations.

Why those correlations are, they may be beyond us. I read some science fiction story. Maybe, it as by Chang. The guy who wrote the short story that became the Amy Adams movie.

Anyway, it concerns scientists 150 years from now. I do not know. They write for the Journal of Human Science, which is a completely bullshit journal because humans can no longer do science because it has moved beyond regular humans.

It is all being done by massive information processing AI entities. So, what used to be the chief or the noblest pursuit of humanity, it is now this little hobbyist magazine, which would be the equivalent of a model railroad magazine today.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

We will continue to be surprised. Those surprises will continue to be in philosophical, existential, and theological terms will be good and bad surprises. Theology got hit by bad surprises during the past 2,000 years.

Earth got knocked out of the center of the universe. The Star System got knocked out of the center of the universe. Humans got knocked out of the center of God’s Creation. God got knocked out as the creator of the universe. Theology’s ass got kicked.

In some ways, we have gone as far as we can go to kick ourselves to the corner of the universe. Although, I would argue that IC further kicks us, by establishing a super long timeline. So, we are not even favoured by having our own special place in time.

We got kicked out of our special place in space. Then IC kicks us out of our special place in time. A Big Bang universe, every moment of a Big Bang universe is its own unique moment.

But a universe that kind of keeps going as a rolling boil across trillions and octillions of years. There is no favoured place in time really either. But once we have taken it as far as we can go to kick humans and human consciousness into insignificance, there are surprises that will pull consciousness back to a pretty important role in the business of the universe

Erik Haereid: To me, religion is about people, imaginations and metaphysics. It’s about what people in general need to believe in beyond their narrowed perceptions, and their struggle between conviction and if their perceptions are true or false.

Religion is also the history about all these imaginations, the doctrines, through history and in every culture that exists and ever has existed.

It’s a broad conglomerate of fictions, in the space where we have needs, doubts, we are uncertain and scared, where we are children even though we are grown up. Religion contains our absent or dead father and mother.

Religion fills, for a majority of people, the mental gap people tend to get when they don’t feel whole. But it departs from fictional movies and novels because its task is more existential; while ordinary fictions that we know are false are entertaining, religion is nurture and mental food.

Theology is the study of such religious belief. It’s the investigation of those histories, trying to prove if it’s true or false. To me, it’s also associated with the priest, who spoke at school and in the church, and represented an alternative truth and path.

And therefore it’s more like telling us the truth, like a teacher in history or geography, more than asking critical questions about if it’s true or false. I can’t remember much self-criticism from my childhood’s priests.

They told us a truth, with conviction and aura. I can’t remember that they said something like “…but, maybe what I tell you now is not true”. So, theology is, to me, the beginning of and cause to religion wars (Here I link theology to every religion, not only Christianity).

It’s the foundation of centuries with quarrels and unnecessary fights. Because it does not contain any doubt. And since religion contains several gods and texts which do not fit into a single truth, theology’s lack of respect and humility creates violence and wars.

God does not exist, other than a need, a wish, as comfort, to reduce personal responsibility and emotional baggage. A type like Jesus may have existed. That’s possible, and likely.

But most of the figures from the texts are mythical, and some of them may have existed in some way; the texts exaggerate them to fit the reader’s needs, the aim of the text.

To me the Bible, Koran and the history of any God is a manmade project, well written, superb actually, fictions that fulfills many people’s needs. In addition, it’s an edifice of doctrines that force people into certain beliefs and ways of thinking.

It’s a “dictator’s” voice speaking to his audience, his uncertain and unsafe people, promising them safety and prosperity. And the people, in lack of independence and belief in themselves, listen, grasp and take it for granted.

To me, this castle of fantasies reminds me about how fragile we humans are, emotionally, and how dominating emotions like anxiety, guilt and shame, are. Religions are a tool for humans to abide by in their lives.

Therefore, theology in the sense that it tries to prove Gods existence, or at least to make arguments for Gods existence, is close to nonsense. The main problem is that some really think the text is true, whether it’s the Bible, Koran or Vedas.  But as fictions, the texts can be rewarding.

What is meaningful is discussing human’s fantasy abilities. And our immense needs to build these kinds of illusions and imaginary worlds. And of course our inclination to let us convince; believe in such castles of words, symbols, actions, meaning, even though most people at some deep level understand that this can’t be true.

The history of religions is more like a testimony of a wonderful creative human brain. It’s absolutely amazing what abilities we have, to let us lead into such fantasy worlds, let us be seduced and directed.

And especially let the imaginations, or rather the people who manipulate, convince us that the imaginations are real. What I think is most interesting, which psychologists certainly can answer better, is where the boundary goes, that’s where we let go of the imagination and think it’s real.

I don’t believe in any God, but in the creative power, human abilities and will that faith triggers in people.  The downside is the hate that also often appears.

Faith makes us creative; think of all the monumental temples, churches, mosques, and other buildings and monuments that people have built to worship their God. And all the beautiful texts. And all the complex and wonderful rites and ceremonies. The problem is not all these manmade constructions, but the dogmatic and sometimes hateful content.

What are functional and not? I think there are some moral compasses in some biblical texts that are functional, for instance, the story of Jesus Christ. The Ten Commandments is another example. People use it, and also to the good.

To people who have faith, religious texts, rituals, spiritual leaders and monuments have functioned as a safety net, social acceptance, and as a beam through their lives.

To us who don’t have faith, the monuments and rites can be affecting and beautiful. And the music. I have visited churches to calm down, to find inner peace. I like to walk on cemeteries. I feel quiet and peaceful when doing so. When I travel I often visit a church or two, because of its monumental and at the same time tranquil environment. It’s relaxing.

Religions are dysfunctional as extreme dogmas, brainwashers, messing up people’s perception of reality (in the sense that there is a reality), as inspiration to violence, and as motivation to perpetual religious wars.

A main problem in some religions is the double standard, like the situation in the Catholic Church with the Catholic priests abusing children. And when the theology doesn’t open up for new and other interpretations of the texts.

Religions are a lot about extremities. When parents and other authorities teach their children to kill in the name of God, with great promises both in life and after, it’s quite obvious that this becomes dangerous when it’s systemized. As we can see.

Belief in prosperity or at least a nice continuation after death could be functional to a lot of people, because it reduces the anxiety connected to the thought of the scary and unknown phenomenon death.

On the other hand, most religions demand some strict behaviour to achieve the nice continuation, e.g. Karma. This could also motivate people to act good in life.

There is for sure some functionality in religions like Buddhism, where one uses contemplation and meditation techniques and rituals to achieve inner peace. In the secular world, we have adapted it as yoga and learned meditation techniques trying to get the same effects.

One way to conviction is when the belief in God helps you substantially in a traumatic situation in life. If a dogma, a faith, a strong belief in whatever it is, can bring you through the most severe trauma, alive, I guess you lean toward believing that this God or whatever exists in one or another way, even though it’s maybe possible to explain the phenomenon via biochemistry, psychology or something.

I agree with Rick in that religion is an explanation of what people need to know, don’t know, and based on an inner pressure of having to know. It’s about human needs.

And why can’t we live without knowing, without gaining complete control? Curiosity? Anxiety? Probably both based on a need to understand and see the whole picture that makes meaning and sense, and make us survive.

Humans try to explain their lives and the world they perceive, the Universe, based on various reasons. On this road, we get stuck, locked, because we tend to be convinced (because it pleases us).

When something feels odd or dangerous or dislikeable, people tend to reject it even if it’s based on data, science, logic, and everything humans see as truth. These obstacles postpone a smooth understanding of how things work.

We need to feel safe in our environment, before we move on. Rick mentions Einstein’s resistance to the probabilistic nature of Quantum Mechanics.

I am sure it took people some time, then back in 1543 (I had to look up the year) when Copernicus draw the new picture of where the earth stood in the Universe, and changed people’s consciousness from a geo- to heliocentric view, before they accepted that the Earth orbits around the Sun and not the opposite.

We often choose what pleases us; fulfill our needs, even if it’s false; even if it’s plausible that it’s false, and sometimes even if we know that it’s false. Then our subjective truth becomes something else than an objective truth.

The irrational nature of us is a part of the truth. We can choose to call this nature whatever we like, for instance, a part of a deterministic Universe that we don’t know yet, or that exists beyond what we are capable of ever knowing.

When people find peace, some other, alternative truth can be disturbing. Also, truths based on enormous amounts of data, information, and smart black boxes inside AI-agents. Maybe this is temporary, because we don’t know or understand yet.

Maybe there exists an objective truth that is good and not bad, where every human brain and body on the planet fits into a higher level of consciousness. We’ll see. Until then we are all more or less separated, with our own, individual truth, and in groups where each individual seemingly fit into some dogmatic truth.

If the absolute truth is a higher level of human consciousness, a summary of all individual truths, then the objective truth is the present truth, including science and religions, knowing, doubting and believing. Knowing can, after all, be reduced to a mental process. Maybe our own technology one day will help us to gain a common truth.

Religion is not wrong in the sense that it’s not functional, on the contrary. It’s, as Rick says, a tool, like eyeglasses, cars and computers. We always look for the best tool, the most correct map, and adjust it all the time.

It’s interesting and rewarding to read Ricks thoughts, like when he says that we, humans, are captured in theology, philosophy and existential questions and definitions, because we can never collect or reach science.

In the future, it’s contained in the CI’s black boxes with unknown algorithms finding new relationships and correlations to events and phenomenon. We will never be the Masters we dream about, gaining the total control we try to, understanding everything, being superior as we are to other animals.

Because on this road we invent things that prevent us from achieving this. Like AI and black boxes. And because this will happen perpetually, we will always turn us to theology and religion and spirituality, because we can’t accept that we do not know everything! If I understand you right, Rick.

2. Jacobsen: Also, to close the Part Three add-ons, we talked about the little world of good and evil. In relation to religion or the lack thereof, what comprises the middle world and big world of good and evil?

Rosner: You have been asking questions about various levels of evil over the last few weeks and days. Good and evil on a small scale. This reminds me of a diatribe I went on with you. It was under a different topical umbrella about companies that suck and people who are assholes.

I assume this falls under little evil. Things that do not directly threaten people’s welfare but make life a little bit more unpleasant for everyone. That can include microaggressions and even the refusal to grant cognitive credit to animals.

It allows us to, in America, to kill 10-20 billion chickens per year. We raise meat animals under terrible conditions. Also, milk cows don’t have the greatest time. I assume that will be looked at as a greater evil when we have a better understanding of consciousness.

Although maybe not, because the kinds of consciousness that will be more commonplace, more complicated, and more powerful than ours in the future, the life of a chicken may not be any more important than we often view it.

Medium evils are acts that directly harm other people.  That threatens their lives. That takes away their money or freedom. That discount their opinions. Right now, we are 18 days away from the mid-term elections.

There is massive voter suppression in the country. That seems like it is, at least, medium evil. The Republicans, or even each party, doing it. But the Republicans have been much more successful and ruthless about it, since 2010.

That is, at least, medium evil. Big evil would be things like war. In discussing all these, you have to discuss whether the actions that lead to the goodnesses and evils are intentional or just a matter of generalized incompetence and not being able to resist our own tendencies.

Also, under big evil, I guess, you would have situations of which we are not yet aware that impinge larger structures than just our planet. It is reasonable to assume that there are other conscious species out there.

That many of them are going to be much, much older than us. That their actions might encompass much larger things. There is the possibility of Star Wars level of evil. Then there is the possibility that the universe has some intentionality.

It implies the possibility for universe level good and evil. I realized that talked about evil with all my examples…

Jacobsen: …[Laughing]…

Rosner: …and no examples of good at various levels. But having decent manners counts as a little good, some Jewish people joke, including us, about Mitzvoth.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Rosner: When I talk about them, it is about something really trivial I did. Nothing comes to mind like holding a door open for somebody. A medium good might be working to be less of a dick in a long-term relationship.

My wife and I, as a precautionary measure and not because we have a lot of conflicts, have been going to couples counselling for decades, about once per month. It is like doing maintenance on the relationship and then helping to build an emotional framework.

Where if there is something that annoys me, I can look at it, then decide, “Is this something I can let go because it has no real importance? Or is it something I need to call her on because it has the potential to impact our relationship? Also, are there things I need to work on myself that be annoying and whether I can lose them in the context of the relationship?”

Then there are medium goods, overt acts that have actual impacts on other people and also on you, like giving to charity. Since I have been unemployed, I have been crappy at it. Giving up money or time has a real impact on your life and someone else’s life, it seems like a medium thing

It seems like something that you have to do. But it is not simply opening doors as an activity that you’re used to, e.g., I was a doorman for years. I am very cognizant of doors. That’s all I have time for.

Haereid: I believe that one main reason to evilness on all levels, from person to person, with groups like organizations involved, religious, political and others, and with states, big, medium or little evil, is overregulation (suppression, brainwashing, dogmatizing…).

When people are diminished or overruled by someone else beyond their own needs and opportunities, we seem to produce violence and evil actions, physically and psychologically, against ourselves and others.

We are kind of forced into a tyranny of egality, and of course, we hate it because it’s not natural for us. But everyone (my exaggeration) tells us that we need to fit in by being egalitarian. No one (another exaggeration) sees that to fit in and be good we need to be different.

When I talk about equality and egality I mean equal in almost everything else than worth and quality; to achieve a perception and feelings of that humans have the same quality and worth, we have to incarnate that we are substantially different. That’s my point.

A little evil could be to be rude by not answer a colleague or neighbour when it’s natural to be polite, and you are not distracted by something else. And in general being rude to someone you just don’t like, without any constructive criticism.

A little good could be to be more than polite to that neighbour or stranger you meet at the store, and say hello and smile or something like that.

I would say that if you torture one person to death, knowing that this person died under severe pain, it’s big evil because of the severity of the pain, even though no state or government or religious organization is involved, and even though no other persons are seemingly influenced.

If the evil is medium or big depends on the amount of the pain, for how long this affects that person(s) and of how many persons this affect. If one person damages a world (by for instance creating and spreading a harmful internet virus, starting a war or intentionally spread an AI-agent that is programmed to kill or hurt as many people as possible), that is big evil.

And if a group of people, like a religious fanatic group as Daesh, creates violence by torturing and killing people, that is big evil.

If you kill a bird because you are hungry, it’s not evil but brutal and necessary; it’s life, it’s natural. But if you catch a bird and make it suffers in some kind of pain some time before you kill it, it’s evil. It’s, as Rick says, the conditions before killing the animal whether it’s by hunting or raising that matters.

Regimes, both secular and religious, and groups like political or religious movements, are good when they teach people to think for themselves, let them act as they want to (to some extent) and evolve as themselves and not necessarily to be approved by others (persons, regimes, groups, organizations…).

When we get what we basically need we tend to accept that other people think and act otherwise than us, and we also approve it and learn from it.

Goodness is about getting opportunities, evilness about not. Religious texts, rituals, cultures can both reveal opportunities and not. The same about secular societies; the regimes, the culture, the organizations need to facilitate, so that each person get these optimal opportunities. This is big good; the freedom to choose, the number of possibilities.

A Norwegian priest said recently that God gives her a bigger perspective of life, and a room to express all her difficult emotions and feelings. Then God is good, for her and her surroundings.

I also believe that faith can raise one’s consciousness over and beyond the levels people with no faith usually possess; faith can under certain circumstances make us more intelligent and embrace our emotions in a better way.

Its evil intentionally to focus on others flaws to gain position oneself. This is so on personal level, between groups and states.

Goodness is when for instance a political leader acknowledges and shows respect to an opponent. Such as John McCain did in the 2008 presidential campaign against Barack Obama, when a woman said Obama was “Arab”. McCain stopped her, and said that “Obama is a decent family man…”. McCain defended his political opponent.

Goodness is to embrace others by confirming them, and make the others see their own opportunities and abilities, talent, like a trainer.

I will also mention the decadence of the western world, illustrated in, for instance, the movie “The Wolf of Wall Street”. This becomes evil when it escalates and harms people severely, because we are intelligent enough to know the consequences. I think it’s qualified when religions criticize this kind of behaviour.

This decadence can be illustrated by let’s say drinking two bottles of liquor containing 40 % alcohol each day instead of two-three glasses of wine to your Saturday dinner. It’s about moderation.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Erik Haereid: “About my writing: Most of my journalistic work I did in the pre-Internet-period (80s, 90s), and the articles I have saved are, at best, aged in a box somewhere in the cellar. Maybe I can find some of it, but I don’t think that’s that interesting.

Most of my written work, including crime short stories in A-Magasinet (Aftenposten (one of the main newspapers in Norway, as Nettavisen is)), a second place (runner up) in a nationwide writing contest in 1985 arranged by Aftenposten, and several articles in different newspapers, magazines and so on in the 1980s and early 1990s, is not published online, as far as I can see. This was a decade and less before the Internet, so a lot of this is only on paper.

From the last decade, where I used more time doing other stuff than writing, for instance work, to mention is my book from 2011, the IQ-blog and some other stuff I don’t think is interesting here.

I keep my personal interests quite private. To you, I can mention that I play golf, read a lot, like debating, and 30-40 years and even more kilos ago I was quite sporty, and competed in cross country skiing among other things (I did my military duty in His Majesty The King’s Guard (Drilltroppen)). I have been asked from a couple in the high IQ societies, if I know Magnus Carlsen. The answer is no, I don’t :)”

Haereid has interviewed In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal Advisory Board Member Dr. Evangelos Katsioulis, some select articles include topics on AI in What will happen when the ASI (Artificial superintelligence) evolves; Utopia or Dystopia? (Norwegian), on IQ-measures in 180 i IQ kan være det samme som 150, and on the Norwegian pension system (Norwegian). His book on the winner/loser-society model based on social psychology published in 2011 (Nasjonalbiblioteket), which does have a summary review here.

Erik lives in Larkollen, Norway. He was born in Oslo, Norway, in 1963. He speaks Danish, English, and Norwegian. He is Actuary, Author, Consultant, Entrepreneur, and Statistician. He is the owner of, chairman of, and consultant at Nordic Insurance Administration.

He was the Academic Director (1998-2000) of insurance at the BI Norwegian Business School (1998-2000) in Sandvika, Baerum, Manager (1997-1998) of business insurance, life insurance, and pensions and formerly Actuary (1996-1997) at Nordea in Oslo Area, Norway, a self-employed Actuary Consultant (1996-1997), an Insurance Broker (1995-1996) at Assurance Centeret, Actuary (1991-1995) at Alfa Livsforsikring, novice Actuary (1987-1990) at UNI Forsikring, and a Journalist at Norsk Pressedivisjon.

He earned an M.Sc. in Statistics and Actuarial Sciences from 1990-1991 and a Bachelor’s degree from 1984 to 1986/87 from the University of Oslo. He did some environmental volunteerism with Norges Naturvernforbund (Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature), where he was an activist, freelance journalist and arranged ‘Sykkeldagen i Oslo’ twice (1989 and 1990) as well as environmental issues lectures.

He has industry experience in accounting, insurance, and insurance as a broker. He writes in his IQ-blog the online newspaper Nettavisen. He has personal interests in history, philosophy, reading, social psychology, and writing.

He is a member of many high-IQ societies including 4G, Catholiq, Civiq, ELITE, GenerIQ, Glia, Grand, HELLIQ, HRIQ, Intruellect, ISI-S, ISPE, KSTHIQ, MENSA, MilenijaNOUS, OLYMPIQ, Real, sPIqr, STHIQ, Tetra, This, Ultima, VeNuS, and WGD.

Rick G. Rosner: “According to semi-reputable sources, Rick Rosner has the world’s second-highest IQ. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writer’s Guild Award and Emmy nominations, and was named 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Registry.

He has written for Remote Control, Crank Yankers, The Man Show, The Emmy Awards, The Grammy Awards, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. He has also worked as a stripper, a bouncer, a roller-skating waiter, and a nude model. In a TV commercial, Domino’s Pizza named him the World’s Smartest Man. He was also named Best Bouncer in the Denver Area by Westwood Magazine.

He spent the disco era as an undercover high school student. 25 years as a bar bouncer, American fake ID-catcher, 25+ years as a stripper, and nude art model, and nearly 30 years as a writer for more than 2,500 hours of network television.

He lost on Jeopardy!, sued Who Wants to Be a Millionaire over a bad question, and lost the lawsuit. He spent 35+ years on a modified version of Big Bang Theory. Now, he mostly sits around tweeting in a towel. He lives in Los Angeles, California with his wife and daughter.

You can send an email or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn, or see him on YouTube.”

[2] Individual Publication Date: October 15, 2018: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/haereid-rosner-four; Full Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2019: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. Ask A Genius (or Two): Conversation with Erik Haereid and Rick Rosner (Part Four) [Online].October 2018; 18(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/haereid-rosner-four.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2018, October 22). Ask A Genius (or Two): Conversation with Erik Haereid and Rick Rosner (Part Four)Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/haereid-rosner-four.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Ask A Genius (or Two): Conversation with Erik Haereid and Rick Rosner (Part Four). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 18.A, October. 2018. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/haereid-rosner-four>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2018. “Ask A Genius (or Two): Conversation with Erik Haereid and Rick Rosner (Part Four).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 18.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/haereid-rosner-four.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “Ask A Genius (or Two): Conversation with Erik Haereid and Rick Rosner (Part Four).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 18.A (October 2018). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/haereid-rosner-four.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2018, ‘Ask A Genius (or Two): Conversation with Erik Haereid and Rick Rosner (Part Four)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 18.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/haereid-rosner-four>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2018, ‘Ask A Genius (or Two): Conversation with Erik Haereid and Rick Rosner (Part Four)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 18.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/haereid-rosner-four.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “Ask A Genius (or Two): Conversation with Erik Haereid and Rick Rosner (Part Four).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 18.A (2018):October. 2018. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/haereid-rosner-four>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Ask A Genius (or Two): Conversation with Erik Haereid and Rick Rosner (Part Four) [Internet]. (2018, October; 18(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/haereid-rosner-four.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 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.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2018. 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, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Advertisements
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: