Skip to content

An Interview with Benjamin Li on Family, Intelligence Testing, and Worldview (Part One)

August 22, 2020

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 23.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Nineteen)

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, 2020

Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2020

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 5,523

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

Benjamin Li is a student of mathematics and statistics at the University of British Columbia in Canada. He is a member of multiple high I.Q. societies requiring I.Q. scores above three or four standard deviations above the mean such as the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE), Torr, Profundus High I.Q. Society and Global Genius Generation Group. He is interested in mathematics, statistics, theology, evolutionary biology, theoretical physics, and high-range mental testing. A dogged devotee of Darwin and Galileo with a fascination for theories of scientific eminence, he is dedicated to promoting scientific truth and a real understanding of how the world works. Benjamin has been a participant in tennis, chess, piano, gaming, science, and mathematics competitions – winning various awards since childhood. He is currently a top-level eSports athlete, occasionally competing in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate events, while being ranked among the very best players in Canada. Since joining the high I.Q. community, Benjamin has become one of the top scorers on tests attempting to measure exceptional intelligence accurately. He discusses: prominent family stories; an extended self; the family background; the experience with peers and schoolmates as a child and an adolescent; the purpose of intelligence tests; high intelligence; the ways in which the geniuses have either been mocked, vilified, and condemned if not killed, or praised, flattered, platformed, and revered; the greatest geniuses in history; a genius from a profoundly intelligent person; some work experiences and educational certifications; some of the more important aspects of the idea of the gifted and geniuses; some social and political views; the God concept or gods idea; science; the tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations); the range of the scores; and ethical philosophy.

Keywords: Benjamin Li, intelligence, IQ, The University of British Columbia.

An Interview with Benjamin Li on Family, Intelligence Testing, and Worldview (Part One)[1],[2]*

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

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you were growing up, what were some of the prominent family stories being told over time?

Benjamin Li: My grandfather once told me stories about people he had met who could have been called prodigies, intellectually gifted, or geniuses. These three terms are not equivalent but have some overlap. Giftedness (adulthood) refers to those who have an I.Q. in the top 2% of the general population, and genius is more complicated, so I’ll get back to it later, but genius is not limited to rule-based disciplines like prodigies are.

Growing up, I was especially fascinated with child prodigies – children who perform at a level equal to the top adults in a given field. Prodigies are found only in rule-based disciplines: chess, mathematics, art, and music. A study showed their IQs ranged from 108 to 147, with the math prodigies at the high end of that IQ range. The ability that was extreme for all of them was working memory capacity, which was at or close to the 99.9th percentile in each of them. Even intelligence is not the critical component, as the range of IQs was not extraordinary. Other disciplines related to prodigiousness that haven’t been studied extensively are children who reach exceptional levels in games such as Go, Poker, many popular video/computer games, and the like.

I suggest reading the papers on prodigies that were published in the journal Intelligence.  I have read these three:

1) Putting practice into perspective: Child prodigies as evidence of innate talent. Intelligence, Volume 45, July–August 2014, Pages 60-65 Joanne Ruthsatz, Kyle Ruthsatz, Kimberly Ruthsatz Stephens. 

2) The cognitive bases of exceptional abilities in child prodigies by domain: Similarities and differences. Joanne Ruthsatz, Kimberly Ruthsatz-Stephens, Kyle Ruthsatz Intelligence 44 (2014) 11–14. 

3) Child prodigy: A novel cognitive profile places elevated general intelligence, exceptional working memory and attention to detail at the root of prodigiousness. Intelligence, Volume 40, Issue 5, September–October 2012, Pages 419-426 Joanne Ruthsatz, Jourdan B. Urbach.

I would caution against pursuing answers from sources that are not peer reviewed. There is a mountain of misinformation published by pop-science and science news magazines.

2. Jacobsen: Have these stories helped provide a sense of an extended self or a sense of the family legacy?

Li: Being a prodigy and being gifted intellectually are two different things. Still, somehow I realized both terms provide me with a core identity, especially with how I see myself and my ability to succeed. In terms of specific activities I took up throughout my life, most of my peers in various activities expressed me as a prodigy. With definitive criteria for a prodigy, my achievement in many fields can not be said to be comparable to top adults in an area, but I could certainly see how I may have qualified in the eSports industry. When I entered my first local tournament as the youngest competitor at the event, I won first place without dropping a single game, against a large group of adults – some were ranked in the province. Then when I was in high school, while being at a level capable of going pro, I took one of the world’s best players to the final game at an international competition, placing 9th out of around 200 national-level competitors. I took up many extra-curricular activities in life, but if I decided to pursue one as a career, eSports probably would have been the best choice. These days, while holding video games as a hobby and being less competitive, I rarely compete and play, but I am still among the best players nationally, and can undoubtedly keep competing until my 40s if I want to.

As for giftedness, in the early years, I did not care too much about my intelligence, and I never believed I was gifted (or truly understood I.Q. or cognition the way I do now). Besides, I was not identified as gifted by schools early in elementary school, but now I see why there could be problems with me studying alongside a regular class. I had a feeling I was quite different from my peers and needed special assistance to reach my potential, but I just ignored it and moved on for years. Many issues emerge because of a mismatch with educational environments that are not responsive to the pace and level of gifted students’ learning and thinking. Others occur because of the unsupportive social, school, or home environments. Identifying gifted children is often challenging but is very important because typical school teachers are not qualified to educate a gifted student. This can lead to a situation where a gifted child is bored, underachieves, and misbehaves in class. One thing to note is that maturity is often confused for giftedness, and I had little of the former, but perhaps a lot of the latter. In terms of physical development and mental maturity, psychologists say I am around 2-3 years behind the average student my age, giving the illusion of mental retardation due to a lower maturity level than my peers.

In high school, my problems quickly grew as in my senior year, as I was the only one among my peers who didn’t know what to do with my life or study at university. I suffered from underachievement in school, which lowered my self-esteem a lot throughout the years. Underachievement for me also probably resulted from emotional or psychological factors, including depression, anxiety, perfectionism, low self-esteem, or self-sabotage. I still got into a reasonably elite University and achieved highly enough (despite not caring until the last few months of high school), but reflecting, I wish I could have achieved a lot higher in my academics and aimed for the very best Universities. I still often find the educational system and social interaction quite oppressive, but I do see the potential for a bright future. 

Prodigiousness and giftedness certainly provided a sense of my extended-self, and it positively impacted how I see myself and how I can meaningfully contribute to society. Joining high I.Q. societies gave me a sense of belonging, and individuals that I could better socialize with in general. As for the term genius (see my definition of genius later), I am certainly not a genius in terms of accomplishment, and there is a meager chance my characteristics are at maximum expression. Currently, I am focusing on a career in science, rather than an ordinary office job. I hope to do my best in making original, creative, and honest contributions to science and mathematics, genius or not. 

As an aside, I would like to say that I do not view myself as better or worse than anyone else, but because ordinary people vastly outnumber individuals such as myself, I need a different social environment to suit one’s needs and potential, that’s all. 

3. Jacobsen: What was the family background, e.g., geography, culture, language, and religion or lack thereof?

Li: I was born in Ontario, Canada. My parents came from China and immigrated to Canada, with little proficiency in English. My parents don’t endorse any particular religion, and discussions about religion have never come up. My mom did not go to University, but my father got an M.Sc Applied Physics degree at the Chinese Academy of Science, China, and is now working as a software engineer. My dad had two brothers, and one had gotten an MD at a University in China, and his oldest brother got a Ph.D. in Chemistry at CalTech. 

4. Jacobsen: How was the experience with peers and schoolmates as a child and an adolescent?

Li: I did not have too many close friends in school, but most of my friends are those I had gained through extracurricular activities, which was my only connection with peers. I never had genuine friends. When I was younger, I was quite childish, fooled around a lot in class, but was quite ambitious in other realms, and perhaps my peers recognized me for that. I suffered depression for quite a while, which made my experiences with peers a lot worse, and probably gave a poor impression for the most part. Overall, I don’t think my peers noticed me due to my calm, awkward, and just forgettable nature.

5. Jacobsen: What is the purpose of intelligence tests to you?

Li: I have a lot to say about this, so please bear with me. 

Intelligence plays a unifying role in the social sciences. It is a pervasive trait that plays a role in any individual, expressing itself in virtually anything somebody does or says. Intelligence test scores reliably predict life outcomes, but due to imperfect correlations with intelligence and real-life achievement, and because most people’s remarkable conspicuous inability to accurately examine another person’s intelligence, it compels us to formalize the procedure with tests. Smart people are smart because they inherited genes that make them bright. Intelligence is 85% heritable in adults and can only be degraded by environmental factors. There is no known way to boost intelligence. All of the environmental variance (adults) is due to the nonshared environment, meaning NOT the family environment.

Although many use the word “intelligence” concerning mental testing, g (general intelligence) is the proper scientific term to use, “intelligence” being too ambiguous and provocative. g – an empirical phenomenon discovered by Charles Spearman, represents what is familiar to (shared by) all tests for mental ability, and is the largest source of variance in test scores. It is an empirical fact, not a theory, and is well defined, and not controversial. As a theoretical construct, g is the overall or general efficiency of an information processing system regarding its capacity and speed of handling information.

First, most mainstream intelligence tests are not intended to measure extremely high intelligence. I.Q. tests are typically normed for a range of ± 2.5 SD. A few go to +3.0 (145sd15), and a very few go to +4.0(160sd15), but with a lot of uncertainty. We know there are people above the top realistic measurement possible, but we can’t compare these people because we can’t correctly measure their I.Q. or (more importantly) g. We may have to conclude that there is absolutely no way to know which person is the smartest. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) – a famous test, can measure general intelligence well, but it is not designed to measure “high” general ability but rather to indicate difficulties , so as scores approach the ceiling (measurement limit) the accuracy decays as the problems are not accurately discriminating among the higher levels due to statistical distortion and measurement errors. Things are actually even messier. Charles Spearman left us with an idea known as Spearman’s Law of Diminishing Returns (SLODR) – as intelligence increases, the variance accounted for by g declines. We expect that g will increase with intelligence measures (I.Q.), but that it will not do so linearly. If we accept that SLODR is true, then we must conclude that we cannot know the division between g and Anon-g factors at very high levels. The reason for mentioning SLODR is that it tells us those very bright people should differ little in g, but perhaps a lot in non-g residuals of broad abilities. If we find this result, we have to compare people based on different abilities after a certain threshold, which doesn’t make sense. A person with very high verbal ability may not be properly compared to someone with very high math or spatial ability. Could we reasonably compare Beethoven to Einstein? Impossible.

If we wish to measure higher than four standard deviations above the mean (160sd15 = 164sd16 = 196sd24), there needs to be a little extra ceiling test. High-range IQ tests are intended to measure intelligence within the “gifted” range and exceed most regular intelligence tests’ ceilings. This is an experimental branch of psychometrics starting in the ultra-high I.Q. community thirty or so years ago. However, I.Q. exists as a measurement and cannot be defined outside of its range. Professional I.Q. tests are the best at giving us valid, reliable, and properly normed scores (especially within the normal ranges). We cannot test above an I.Q. of about 160 because there are not enough data points in the norming sample to justify a higher ceiling. A very few professional tests make estimates above the justifiable ceiling, but with significant error bands. Even then, some people hit the ceiling and cannot be measured. Psychologists in Canada, including a few experts on “giftedness,” had told me it was impossible to discriminate meaningfully above the 99.9th percentile. Whether or not we can accurately measure extreme aptitude or not will have its pros and cons. Is general intelligence still operating up to extreme levels? Then that will allow for potential research prospects. If not, then everyone who scores at a certain level can be comforted: there is no need to feel frightened by snobs with much higher I.Q. scores than you have. It means nothing. Regardless, it will probably take another few decades before careful statistical analysis will tell to what extent possible to test for intelligence at the very highest levels meaningfully.

Finally, aside from measuring general intelligence and making predictions for life outcomes, for the test takers of difficult I.Q. tests, it is about the satisfaction of solving hard problems and getting an indication of where one stands compared to other intelligent people. For regular I.Q. tests, they were initially used to identify students who needed remedial education.

6. Jacobsen: When was high intelligence discovered for you?

Li: In reality, there are hundreds of different ways I can answer this question. In this case, I will briefly describe my interests and curiosity as a way I suspected my intelligence was unusually out of the norm. 

When I was young, I didn’t understand intelligence and didn’t think I was anything out of the ordinary. Still, as I grew up, it became reasonably convincing that I could be well above the top 1% of the general population in general intelligence. The most important thing for me was when I grew into a young adult; then, I became preoccupied and curious about all sorts of scientific and philosophical inquiry. What has been bothering me, or at least used to bother me in the past, the question of how rare people with my interests and skills are. I know for sure that far fewer than 1% of the general population is comparable with me in terms of intellectual curiosity and scope. I was always fascinated by child prodigies, but my fascination with theories of scientific eminence and genius came to life. Alongside having diverse interests in scientific research, and continually learning on my own in many disciplines such as maths, statistics, physics, biology, chemistry, music composition, economics, classics, sociology, theology, psychology, politics, education, anthropology, criminology, history, philosophy, etc., made me into a curious lifelong learner. I read hundreds of books, watched multiple documentaries and videos, discussed numerous topics to the general public, emailed professors regarding various scientific issues, and spent virtually hours each day theorizing and thinking about thought-provoking questions. It was inescapable that eventually, I’d have to accept that I am way beyond the norm in terms of intellectual curiosity, ability to learn rapidly, and my aptitude to comprehend complex ideas.

7. Jacobsen: When you think of the ways in which the geniuses have either been mocked, vilified, and condemned if not killed, or praised, flattered, platformed, and revered, what seems like the reason for the extreme reactions to and treatment of geniuses? Many alive today seem camera shy – many, not all.

Li: The treatment of geniuses is due to being an outlier in terms of many salient characteristics that represent an individual, such as one’s personality and intelligence. Ordinary people vastly outnumber brilliant people because it is a consequence of the bell curve’s nature. Too often, geniuses are treated like idiots or victimized. Geniuses are some of the loneliest people in the world. Besides, many geniuses have difficulty in understanding allegories, jokes, irony, and sarcasm. How to start a conversation and how to finish it. They may also have problems with the implementation of unwritten social norms.

8. Jacobsen: Who seem like the greatest geniuses in history to you?

Li: Galileo Galilei and Charles Darwin are two of my personal favorites. Darwin wrote books on both evolution and sexual selection. Growing up in a world of mental-make believe, Darwin was taught that every animal had a unique place in God’s creation, each made by God, under his perfect, unchanging design. Thanks to him, now our understanding of the world has changed. Evolution is a fact, backed by undeniable evidence, and the brutal elegance of the force that drives evolution on is nothing other than natural selection. 

Einstein both equated mass and energy and devised the theory of relativity. Newton co-invented calculus, devised a theory of gravity and authored Newtonian mechanics. Faraday and Maxwell had several hypotheses regarding electricity. 

I am also highly impressed by individuals who apply themselves to several academic fields. Richard Feynman is a classic example. 

9. Jacobsen: What differentiates a genius from a profoundly intelligent person?

Li: A profoundly intelligent person would be an individual with exceptional general reasoning, mental, or learning ability. Intellectual giftedness in adulthood is defined as being in the 98th percentile or higher in mental capacity, but a profoundly intelligent person would probably be well above this threshold. A rarity of 1/1000 in the general population or ability at the 99.9th percentile (145sd15 = 148sd16 = 172sd24) or higher should suffice. Someone with an IQ of 145 would easily have the highest IQ in most high school graduating classes, and could also intellectually outdo virtually everyone in tasks that require impressive mental power.

As for genius, I do not view genius as a degree of intelligence, but rather as a level of accomplishment that reaches the stars.  Here are my comments: Genius is extremely rare. It happens when a constellation of necessary, but not sufficient traits exist at maximum expression. IQ is not the issue. No professional IQ test has a seriously high ceiling, most top out at 160 or less. Just being smart is not an accomplishment. But, it takes very smart people to accomplish some complex things. A list of real geniuses can be found in Charles Murray (2003) Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences 800 B.C. to 1950. Over that very long time span, Murray found about 4000 people who met a reasonable definition of genius. These are the people who discover, invent, and create the things that have shaped human cultures. A profoundly gifted person does not have to accomplish anything, but to qualify as a genius one must. What are the necessary, but not sufficient traits? Sir Francis Galton listed intelligence, zeal, and persistence. Another component is probably creativity. {See The Cambridge Handbook of the Neuroscience of Creativity (2018); Rex E. Jung (Editor), Oshin Vartanian (Editor) for a detailed account of what is known about creativity.} Hans Eysenck believed that both traits Neurosis and Psychoticism had to be elevated in true genius. Obviously if either trait is overly expressed, the individual will be destroyed and not achieve enormous feats of creative genius. When N and P are somewhat elevated they positively impact the individual. For example, P may cause a person to be seen as aggressive, cold, egocentric, impersonal, impulsive, antisocial, unempathic, tough-minded, and creative. Arthur Jensen wrote (Giftedness and Genius in Intellectual Talent, edited by Benbow and Lubinski) that genius is the product of high ability x high productivity x high creativity, where ability = g = efficiency of information processing, productivity = endogenous cortical stimulation, and creativity = trait psychoticism. It turns out that geniuses rarely, if ever, have children who are genius. The traits are so extreme and rare that they do not reappear often.

10. Jacobsen: What have been some work experiences and educational certifications for you?

Li: I worked as a private tennis coach locally, training children, grown-ups, and the elderly. I enjoy tutoring children in other activities I have performed well in.

11. Jacobsen: What are some of the more important aspects of the idea of the gifted and geniuses? Those myths that pervade the cultures of the world. What are those myths? What truths dispel them?

Li: The individual differences in intelligence observed in children before puberty does not represent reality in adulthood. The different developmental curves of individuals regarding physical and mental growth complicates the matter of identifying giftedness. As a result, one of the problems in the psychological testing of children is the confusion of precocity with “giftedness.” When precocious children receive gifted identification and subsequently ages to be some merely ordinary adult, many often make the error of assuming that something has gone astray in the social and emotional development during puberty, rather than understanding that precociousness has nothing to do with intelligence, to begin with. Everyone should realize that when most psychologists educate the public about intelligence, almost everything they say is wrong. More formally, giftedness should be defined in adults only, rather than children.

12. Jacobsen: What are some social and political views for you? Why hold them?

Li: I would say I am on the center-left of Canadian politics. I believe in the equality of opportunity and human rights. Other than that, I try to keep out of politics and don’t have much to say about policy recommendations.

13. Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the God concept or gods idea and philosophy, theology, and religion?

Li: Chris Langan, the man behind the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU), is quite an interesting person to me, so I am planning on studying his work a little more in-depth later. I am interested in religion, even though it conflicts with science. I grew up as an Atheist but recently became agonistic. As for science, the link between IQ and religiosity is very well established. There is a negative correlation between IQ and religiosity. This applies at the national level (mean national IQ used); the state level (mean US state IQ used); and the individual level. As IQ decreases, both the percentage of god believers and the degree of dogmatism increases.

14. Jacobsen: How much does science play into the worldview for you?

Li: Science plays a huge role in my worldview. Science is the systematic study of natural phenomena. The scientific method, which is the framework of science, is an iteration towards completion without ever reaching it. Science seems to have the answer to everything, but science cannot give us absolute answers at a fundamental level. Science cannot provide us complete solutions because there are limits to what we can observe and measure. It is best to rely on information and data from peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals, rather than blogs and sites with political and personal bias. Ideally, data should determine one’s views and how they are maintained. Sometimes, own preferences, feelings, values, and ethics, may play a role in how one forms their beliefs, and I believe that is deeply ingrained in human nature.

15. Jacobsen: What have been some of the tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations) for you?

Li: I am sorry I have to go a little bit off-topic, but I am pleased you asked about standard deviations. No I.Q. score is relevant unless the test and the standard deviation is mentioned. Virtually all celebrity reported I.Q. scores are fake and are irrelevant because all are estimated, don’t include the name of the test, version, standard deviation, date taken, and whether it was childhood ratio or an adult deviation score. As most people are not well informed on these matters, monumental ratio I.Q.’s are often quoted concerning famous persons (such as Terrence Tao, Christopher Hirata, Kim Ung-Yong, etc.), without discerning that these can not be compared to adult deviation I.Q.’s. For the layman, there are three scales, the Weschler (SD = 15), Stanford-Binet (SD = 16), and Cattell (SD = 24). I.Q. studies and high-range I.Q. test scores are taken by adults and are always expressed with an I.Q. score using the standard deviation of 15. A 15-scale gives lower numbers, which is good to counteract possible high-I.Q. snobbism and inflation of high I.Q. numbers. Once in a while, you may learn of a young child scoring around 150 to 162 (max score for children) in the U.S. or U.K. Mensa Cattell III B test (standard deviation is 24) and then be compared to Einstein as his estimated I.Q. is presumably 160sd15 or higher. The score of 160 (SD=24), in this case, is 137sd15 and not even compared to the adult population, but rather children in their age group. 150sd24 is equivalent to an I.Q. of 131sd15. Sometimes it may be better to express one’s I.Q. with percentiles or in terms of statistical rarity. 130sd15 = 132sd16 = 148sd24 as these values are all two standard deviations above the mean depending on the scale and represent the 98th percentile score with rarity 1/50 in the general population. Most people think about the category of I.Q. scores rather than by its rarity, which is a bit of a problem when there are these various scales. You can check the rarities and percentiles online and watch for the standard deviation!

My standardized test scores from educational testing services tests (ex., GRE, MAT, SAT, LSAT, GMAT, ACT, etc.), respected alternative high-range I.Q. tests (ex., tests by Jason Betts, Paul Cooijmans, Ron Hoeflin, etc.), psychologists tests (ex., WAIS, Stanford-Binet, Ravens, Cattell, etc.) all indicate ability above the 99.9th percentile. I like to be very specific, mentioning the date/age I took the test, why, the standard deviation, the interpretation of a score in terms of percentile and rarity, and the very nature of the test itself since different I.Q. tests differ quite a bit in structure. For example, the SAT is more of an achievement test now, and scores are not accepted for admission to Mensa anymore, as scores are not thought to correlate with I.Q. tests anymore. I’ll briefly mention a few relevant tests and the scores I received.

I started taking experimental high-range mental tests a few months ago (May 2020). I immediately became one of the top scorers (relative to a portion of the diverse, gifted adult population). For example, I took the General Intelligence Factor Test III and IV (GIFT Numerical) and scored 166sd15 = 170sd16 = 205sd24 on both versions on my first attempt. This score’s rarity is estimated to be 1/184,606 in the general population, but remember that high I.Q. scores are far less reliable than I.Q. scores closer to the population median.

16. Jacobsen: What is the range of the scores for you? The scores earned on alternative intelligence tests tend to produce a wide smattering of data points rather than clusters, typically.

Li: I have not taken many alternative tests, so a range may not be entirely appropriate. Thus far, I have never scored lower than the 99.9th percentile on any reliable/semi-reliable I.Q. test capable of measuring beyond the 99.9th percentile. I suspect in time if I decide to keep high-range I.Q. testing as a hobby for the rest of my life (unlikely because I’d instead create tests in the future than solve them), I’d probably be able to score in the 170s and maybe 180s (S.D = 15) on the more reputable alternative tests. I do quite well on all types of verbal, spatial, and numerical problems. I am also still developing mentally, so I wonder how much my general intelligence will increase.

Many high-range I.Q. testees take some time before realizing the amount of effort required to reach one’s full potential. Lower scores reflect less than maximum effort, and higher scores presumably allow one some additional points due to insanely high levels of motivation plus immense familiarity with tests. 

17. Jacobsen: What ethical philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?

Li: I’m not sure if there is a heaven, but everyone should live life to its fullest and not depend on others like the sun and water. Don’t be so quick to judge a book by its cover. If you stare at anything for long enough, you will find the beauty in it. 

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Member, International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE).

[2] Individual Publication Date: August 22, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/li; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2020: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

*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.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. An Interview with Benjamin Li on Family, Intelligence Testing, and Worldview (Part One) [Online].August 2020; 23(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/li.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2020, August 22). An Interview with Benjamin Li on Family, Intelligence Testing, and Worldview (Part One)Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/li.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. An Interview with Benjamin Li on Family, Intelligence Testing, and Worldview (Part One). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 23.A, August. 2020. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/li>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2020. “An Interview with Benjamin Li on Family, Intelligence Testing, and Worldview (Part One).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 23.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/li.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “An Interview with Benjamin Li on Family, Intelligence Testing, and Worldview (Part One).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 23.A (August 2020). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/li.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Benjamin Li on Family, Intelligence Testing, and Worldview (Part One)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 23.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/li>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Benjamin Li on Family, Intelligence Testing, and Worldview (Part One)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 23.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/li.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “An Interview with Benjamin Li on Family, Intelligence Testing, and Worldview (Part One).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 23.A (2020):August. 2020. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/li>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. An Interview with Benjamin Li on Family, Intelligence Testing, and Worldview (Part One) [Internet]. (2020, August 23(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/li.

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 2012-2020. 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, 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.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: