Skip to content

An Interview with Mr. YoungHoon Kim (김영훈) from South Korea on High-IQ Rankings, Listings, and Societies, and Fraud, Preventing Cheating, and Possible Future Intelligence Tests in the High-IQ Communities (Part Two)

August 22, 2019

YoungHoon Kim United Sigma Korea Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing President

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 20.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Sixteen)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

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

Individual Publication Date: August 22, 2019

Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2019

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 2,588

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract 

Mr. YoungHoon Kim (김영훈) is the President of United Sigma Korea. He discusses: intelligence and testing, rankings/listings, and societies, and their legitimacy compared to the mainstream of psychometrics; a new possible qualification of a high IQ listing or society; tests for a hypothetical IQ listing, qualification and disqualification criteria of the candidates, and other means of entrance into the listing; pluses and minuses of a listing of high-IQ people; issues with current intelligence tests by independent IQ test makers; fraud and egregious cheating in the high-IQ world and preventative and disciplinary measures; and future possible intelligence tests.

Keywords: giftedness, intelligence, intelligence tests, IQ, South Korea, YoungHoon Kim, United Sigma Korea.

An Interview with Mr. YoungHoon Kim (김영훈) from South Korea on High-IQ Rankings, Listings, and Societies, and Fraud, Preventing Cheating, and Possible Future Intelligence Tests in the High-IQ Communities: President, United Sigma Korea (Part Two)[1],[2]

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

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let us move into intelligence testing and ranks now, some rankings/listings and societies exist with online and independent psychometricians and psychometitors alone. What do you think about their legitimacy compared to the mainstream of psychometrics?

YoungHoon Kim: Aside from any independent psychometric legitimacy, I should say that we have to rely on and concede the result from the professional psychologist on the mainstream of the academic psychology and psychometrics; standardized intelligence tests, in case we refer to one’s intelligence estimate as much as accurate by the latest academic researches. As noted in my part one interview before, if high IQ societies or independent psychometricians no longer accept the validity of standardized intelligence tests, doubt or even deny the academic researches on the mainstream, I am afraid to say that, unfortunately, it is all pseudoscience not on any professional science. For instance, of what is different between science and pseudoscience is that we commonly agree science is based on the mainstream of the academic researches containing the rigorous procedure and method, but pseudoscience is not on that of necessary qualifications, even not agree on any science at some extent.

For pseudoscience of the independent IQ test or psychometrics, most importantly, all of their method or metrics rely on the inappropriate and preposterous correlation to the results from the mainstream. In other words, most of the independent psychometricians are convinced that their works are based on the sample of the standardized IQ test results. (Although, they used to deny the mainstream; their groundwork of the progress.) However, the serious matter arises here; in which each data on the whole correlation those amateurs claim is merely from the statement via an email conversation of their testee subjects, and they have never ever verified each data from their subjects for using their tests’ correlation to any other tests each amateur did not create which include the mainstream too.

Consequently, all of their correlations with the mainstream of psychometrics, by independent or amateur psychometricians, come to data rubbish, without respect of their severe shortage of samples compared to the countless mainstream samples. This would be, accordingly, enough to call them all pseudoscience against professional science. (Or otherwise, should we completely depend on amateurs’ honesty factor of their personality? The rest answer comes down to you.)

2. Jacobsen: Others exist with professional psychologists and mainstream tests limited to 4SD or one in 31,560. Still others, they work in the middle to various extents. If you could invent a new qualification of a high IQ listing or society at or above the top 0.1%, what would be the qualification?

Kim: Just so we know, strictly to say, the range over the four standard deviations, 4-sigma or 99.997th percentile out of the normal distribution on the unselected population, more depends on the estimate to evaluate each human intelligence level. Basically, every range of the intelligence level has a different extent of validity and reliability. More or less, when you get farther off the average level – mean IQ 100, you get looser justification of the estimate by degrees. This potential damage of validity and reliability would be detected on every territory in the field of evaluating human mentality.

Nevertheless, as we have knowledge that any IQ test does not directly refer to the human intelligence, there is a place to count the additional data or information when evaluating over the four standard deviation, 99.997th intelligence to extrapolate. The qualification for the additional data to estimate would be legitimate to set on which it contains the high education attainment and research achievement in real-world for those having the range at or above the 4-sigma level of intelligence, 99.997th percentile. This hypothetical qualification of the high Intelligence index or listing should be on what I elaborate above.

3. Jacobsen: What would be the tests included in this hypothetical IQ listing? What would disqualify candidates? What would qualify candidates? Could other qualifications or achievements earn individuals entrance into the listing?

Kim: Let me say one by one to your questions. Yes, it should be count not only the intelligence estimate from the standardized intelligence test by the mainstream, but also be incorporated each intellectual performance when evaluating particularly over the range of 4-sigma, and 5-sigma; IQ 164, and 175 on Wechsler scale, respectively. First, for the viable qualifications, the range over 4-sigma would require the standardized test score at least over 3-sigma, 99.9th percentile, on the full scale, in addition to the high level of educational attainment. Second, this could progressively apply to estimate the range of intelligence over 5-sigma level – five standard deviation. Technically, to estimate this serious range is indispensable to contain the result of the standardized intelligence test score minimum over 4-sigma on the full scale, along with its equivalent education attainment to the performance of the top-class scholastic test score, or world-class research product. Here, for sure this proceeding should be basically on the “estimate” (theoretical) and evaluating each person’s intelligence. In accordance with the meaning of a specific term – estimate, presumably it should not imply directly as fully accurate compared to the same level we calculate. However, it is also not invalid as a manner of measuring the human intelligence at or above the level of 4-sigma and further 5-sigma, which “theoretically” refer to the rarity out of around 1/3,500,000.

Put Statistically (and theoretically), further, we could have even 6-sigma level of the human intelligence, which rarity refer to around 1/1,000,000,000 in accordance with the whole of the human population. In this case, however, countless academic references and agreement from professionals should be inevitable to estimate the equivalent intelligence level theoretically on the 6 standard deviations, because there is no vehicle to evaluate that hypothetical level of the human intelligence by standardized or correlated ever since.

Likewise, for skepticism and criticism on the estimate over the range 5-sigma, it would be advisable to take account of the progress above. This procedure and consequence would be the same as the event probability in statistics. Depending on not only the IQ test by the mainstream, but also on the real-world achievement measurable by the strict academic criteria as such; very high scholastic attainment, profound research achievement or winner on the valid intellectual championships or competitions. What else do we have to count would be on the consistent and professional science and metrics, if any.

4. Jacobsen: What pluses and minuses come from existence on a listing of high-IQ people?

Kim: Considered the existence on a listing of high-IQ people has accounted a valid data based on science, we would be unable to grasp any dark side in it. Most importantly, it would be necessary to build an official listing of high IQ people, as mentioned, based on professional science. Even though we have countless media information published or disseminated to this day, apparently what they have done has been turned out false information or fake news; there is no official listing of the high IQ people.

For making this implement of hypothetical project successful, we must have professionals in the field of high intelligence based on academic science, but not upon any pseudoscience and dictatorship consisting of neither committee nor board of directors which all the existing listings of high IQ people, at the present, could be corresponded to what I point out – pseudoscience and dictatorship having nothing of any legitimate progress. For example, there is one IQ directory group in which their president used to conduct his pyramid scheme businesses via their unscientific IQ listing to get money on the one hand, and even to claim the possession of supernatural ability on the other hand. However, most of IQ people involved have not identified this truth, and still believe that false information. Sadly, the whole proponents of IQ listing stuff used to do what I point out. What should we do then? Now is the time to get out of the shadow of untruth, and to establish an official listing of IQ people with professionals whenever we get a chance.

5. Jacobsen: What are some issues with current intelligence tests by independent IQ test maker?

Kim: There are many controversial and contentious issues mostly because of ID verification, validity and denials of the mainstream caused by itself. First, most independent IQ tests have no ID verification operation. This is a fundamental dilemma. The independent workers don’t know where their data is from, since they have not conducted to verify testee’s ID. If then, how do we take it seriously when analyzing data?

Second, most independent IQ tests’ correlation are unreliable. Each conduct has not verified data from other test scores when compared. To say, independent psychometricians employ right after having the data from other test scores which their test takers stated in an email. However, if not verified this data, how do we know whether it is true or not?

Third, denial of the mainstream. Many of independent used to deny the mainstream psychometrics, but they present their statistics are correlated with the mainstream as some independent calculators have faith their tests are more accurate than the mainstream, and even accept only their test score in their society, disregarding the mainstream score. Presumably, this would be the hardest IQ question. No one could solve these ironical propositions.

6. Jacobsen: What have been cases of fraud and egregious cheating in the high-IQ world? What are preventative and disciplinary measures for known cases?

Kim: Most of the fraud and egregious cheating scores are commonly from independent intelligent tests; no ID verification, pseudo-correlations, and denial of the mainstream. The solution is to be scientific and to depend on the mainstream and professional psychology, and keep a distance off pseudo high IQ societies and Pseudo independent psychometrics. Speaking clearly, IQ by them is not the meaning of IQ that we know, but a kind of playing cards in Las Vegas.

7. Jacobsen: In the future with future scientific advancement and technological sophistication, what might an intelligence test become other than pencil and paper, or their base equivalents found online? Those possible uses of technology to precisely map an individual’s abilities and talents.

Kim: This could be the Science Fiction question. For not confused, then, it would be better to count to the near future just as in 30 years. Nevertheless, it would be impossible to find the valid tests online in that future, but if being scientific much more, as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) has been calculated to IQ estimate in United States, then, with varying scope, the scholastic, academic, and research achievement measures of the human intellect, would be more recognized and calculated to its equivalent level of intelligence.

Some people could misunderstand that this is for something of discrimination, elitism, and narcissism. Absolutely not. If human intelligence is not subject to a portion of discrimination, then high IQ people are also not subject to discrimination too. It is just a difference like race, ethnicity, sexuality, homosexuality, and a diversity of religious beliefs. We know the human intellect only defines what the human is.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] President, United Sigma Korea – High IQ Society of the World Intelligence Network; Member, Olympiq society; Member, Mega Foundation; Member, Epimetheus society; Member, Helliq society; Member, Triple Nine Society (TNS); Member, International Society for Philosphical Enquiry (ISPE); Member, One in A THousand Society (OATHS); Member, Top One Percent Society (TOPS); Member, Mensa Korea.

[2] Individual Publication Date: August 22, 2019: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kim-two; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2019: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. An Interview with Mr. YoungHoon Kim (김영훈) from South Korea on High-IQ Rankings, Listings, and Societies, and Fraud, Preventing Cheating, and Possible Future Intelligence Tests in the High-IQ Communities (Part Two) [Online].August 2019; 20(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kim-two.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2019, August 22). An Interview with Mr. YoungHoon Kim (김영훈) from South Korea on High-IQ Rankings, Listings, and Societies, and Fraud, Preventing Cheating, and Possible Future Intelligence Tests in the High-IQ Communities (Part Two)Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kim-two.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. An Interview with Mr. YoungHoon Kim (김영훈) from South Korea on High-IQ Rankings, Listings, and Societies, and Fraud, Preventing Cheating, and Possible Future Intelligence Tests in the High-IQ Communities (Part Two). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 20.A, August. 2019. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kim-two>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2019. “An Interview with Mr. YoungHoon Kim (김영훈) from South Korea on High-IQ Rankings, Listings, and Societies, and Fraud, Preventing Cheating, and Possible Future Intelligence Tests in the High-IQ Communities (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 20.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kim-two.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “An Interview with Mr. YoungHoon Kim (김영훈) from South Korea on High-IQ Rankings, Listings, and Societies, and Fraud, Preventing Cheating, and Possible Future Intelligence Tests in the High-IQ Communities (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 20.A (August 2019). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kim-two.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2019, ‘AAn Interview with Mr. YoungHoon Kim (김영훈) from South Korea on High-IQ Rankings, Listings, and Societies, and Fraud, Preventing Cheating, and Possible Future Intelligence Tests in the High-IQ Communities (Part Two)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 20.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kim-two>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2019, ‘An Interview with Mr. YoungHoon Kim (김영훈) from South Korea on High-IQ Rankings, Listings, and Societies, and Fraud, Preventing Cheating, and Possible Future Intelligence Tests in the High-IQ Communities (Part Two)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 20.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kim-two

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “An Interview with Mr. YoungHoon Kim (김영훈) from South Korea on High-IQ Rankings, Listings, and Societies, and Fraud, Preventing Cheating, and Possible Future Intelligence Tests in the High-IQ Communities (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 20.A (2019):August. 2019. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kim-two>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. An Interview with Mr. YoungHoon Kim (김영훈) from South Korea on High-IQ Rankings, Listings, and Societies, and Fraud, Preventing Cheating, and Possible Future Intelligence Tests in the High-IQ Communities (Part Two) [Internet]. (2019, August 20(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kim-two.

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 2012-2019. 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, 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
One Comment

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. USK President, YoungHoon Kim (김영훈) – United Sigma Korea

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: