Skip to content

Norwegians of the High-Range Discussion with Erik Haereid, Eivind Olsen, and Tor Arne Jørgensen: Statistician & Actuarial Scientist; Chair, Mensa Norway; 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (3)

March 15, 2021

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 26.D, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (21)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain:

Individual Publication Date: March 15, 2021

Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2021

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 3,704

ISSN 2369-6885


Erik Haereid is an Actuarial Scientist and Statistician. Eivind Olsen is the Chair of Mensa Norway. Tor Arne Jørgensen is the 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe. They discuss: the identification of the gifted students in Norway; Norwegian education; Norway improving its education; early childhood education; Mensa Norway; age limits and provisions for the youngest members of Mensa Norway; the upper limit of the measurements of the Mensa Norway proctored and accepted tests; Mensa Norway and the high-range test community; e of the barriers to the coordination and cooperation of the high-range communities with Mensa International or Mensa Norway and the consideration of the high-range community.

Keywords: Erik Haereid, Eivind Olsen, IQ, Mensa, Mensa Norway, Tor Arne Jørgensen.

Norwegians of the High-Range Discussion with Erik Haereid, Eivind Olsen, and Tor Arne Jørgensen: Statistician & Actuarial Scientist; Chair, Mensa Norway; 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (3)

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

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In terms of the identification of the gifted students in Norway, what are the ways in which to spot them?

Erik Haereid[1]*: Norway is an egalitarian society, where the Law of Jante rules. It’s a lot about suppressing each other, unless the common voice allows the single individual to shine. (I love my people, but I dislike this trait.) That happens with a few, who are marked as ideals. Concerning intelligence, we talk about Magnus Carlsen, who looks good, is young, eccentric and the world’s best in chess. But there are more than 100.000 persons in Norway with Mensa entrance-IQ-level and higher. The main problem is not to spot them, but wanting to keep focusing on them.

Until the society internalizes that there is no threat by providing gifted students an opportunity to evolve, like the society lets many of the cross-country skiers and other athletes do, it will suppress gifted people. It’s about changing views, from feeling personal threat to accept that one can profit on nurturing intelligent and gifted children and students. We have to see the benefits. The benefits by top-athletes are clear to us; people start jogging and feel happy, without comparing themselves like in a competition with those athletes. People have to do the same with gifted people. It’s about respect, about that some are smarter or more gifted in some areas than themselves, and about that they don’t lose worth because of that; on the contrary.

Tor Arne Jørgensen[2]*: Based on the task of “discovering” these most capable students, the general knowledge in our own country of Norway is at best very limited within the field of orientation. However, it should be said that some progress is being made and a few but obvious tell-tale signs can be found, that in turn is viewed as both highlighted as clear indicators, and representative to reveal of subject matter accordingly:

  1. The search for older friends/adults whom can meet them more intellectually.
  2. Constantly searching for new information and learning.
  3. Extended vocabulary, and early understanding of literacy, etc…
  4. Stagnating school teaching bores these students, as they constantly need new and innovative teachings that again can enable the teacher to capture their brilliant intellects.
  5. The imprint of the apparent cliché coated notation of a “class clown” is often used about these students, whereby one prejudices oneself in the fear of not standing out as the clever student that everyone wants to pick on.
  6. Lastly, the overly recognizable designation of «Drop-out» whereby the system fails to catch these students dropping out from schools altogether.

Eivind Olsen[3],[4]: Parents often “know”, but at the same time, parents can also be blinded by the feeling that *their* kid is special. Teachers will also “know”, but there’s not always resources to test the kids. Testing of kids normally happen if either the parents are willing to pay for it at a psychologist, or if the kid is “acting out” in class. There’s no widespread testing so many go undetected.

Jacobsen: How does Norway educate them?

Haereid: Like the others.

Jørgensen: Firstly, Norway does almost nothing to educate these gifted students. Will by that proclaim my statement for the purpose as to address the primary school education system in Norway, by way of exemplifying a purpose directed status quo, as to point out its direct relevance based on which has the greatest impact on these students due to their relatively long education, spanning from early childhood to early adolescence. My personal experiences are by that notation, that the Norwegian schools seem to be knowledge-oriented impaired when it comes to the theme about gifted students, with reference to their innate teaching requirements to get an adapted, as well as purpose-oriented, by implicit targeted schooling. The Norwegian education systems extremely lack knowledge, and extremely lack commitment in order to focus on these students is by that, nothing short of horrible.

I have addressed this issue before in my article in the religious high IQ magazine; Deus Vult, whereby I pointed out a tremendous skewed distribution of resources, according to the learning of weak students who receive full coverage of teacher staffing, and sharpened knowledge tools that follow their specially adapted educational courses from kindergarten level up to and out of high school level. This follow-up system does not include these gifted students, not in the least, at best these gifted students are transferred to a school level above their original school level, or, as in most cases left to fend for themselves, because as the school management always says: “These school-savvy are so self-driven”. When I took my practical pedagogical education (PPU) at the University of Notodden in the South-East of Norway, a fellow student group in pedagogy did a research assignment, that dealt with these gifted students and looked for what type of school programs that was purpose intended and directed at gifted students at these schools. Use of method, was to seek out what type of general knowledge there was to be found in some selected schools in central Norway.

Their findings corresponded to what I expected them to find with regards to my daily profession as a teacher, that these schools had no knowledge of what their obligations were, nor as to what they could do to properly guide these gifted students in their educational course. The Norwegian Directorate of Education (UDIR) has just recently taken up a separate section, where these gifted students appear with vague concretes in accordance with what the primary and lower secondary schools themselves must commit to in accordance with the gifted student educational program and the rights that follow these programs.

In terms of educating these gifted students who represent around 10% of the total number of students in Norway, the Norwegian schools violate these mandatory rights of the gifted students daily! I hope that in the future I can have the opportunity to shed some light on this enormous problem in order to help these gifted students achieving their full potential on an equal footing with regards to the learning weak students at the other end of the intelligence spectrum. This is principle-based on the human rights act, that all children are entitled to the same education according to their inherent abilities. We must therefore now, establish equality before the law for all students, weak and strong!

Olsen: The teachers in the regular school system often don’t have time, resources or knowledge to handle gifted children. When they do, though, they frequently end up giving the kids more tasks, which might almost be seen as some form of punishment. “Oh, you’re done already? Here, solve these equations as well.” In some cases, kids have been allowed to skip a year. Gifted children are not legally guaranteed to get individually adjusted education, that seems to be reserved for the ones struggling in the other end of the pond.

There has been talks about opening up private schools for gifted children, but so far that hasn’t happened either. It seems easy enough to open a private school if it’s based on religion or sports though, but not when it’s based on intellectual giftedness/potential.

Jacobsen: How could Norway improve its education of them?

Haereid: First, accepting the gifted ones, then providing additional environments that give them the necessary freedom to use their abilities. It’s more about a cultural acceptance of extra provisions, than removing the children or students from the others.

It’s about making them feel good, to take charge of themselves and the society, and mix it to a social and common advantage. Creating egocentric capitalists and opportunists is not wanted. I guess this is one possible consequence the authorities are afraid of by making too severe divisions into an already steady egalitarian educational and welfare-system, which already functions quite well concerning the economy.

Jørgensen: Here I must first point out by directing focus on some of the issues mentioned above about the various components that include, the point-by-point concrete references of previously exemplified paragraphs, that this is just one of many ways to recognize that there is an actual problem that must be dutifully addressed according to its severity. But before all this can be started, a serious policy must be properly place, whereby The Norwegian Directorate of Education (UDIR), must have its direct guidelines presented by key political actors, so the way forward is to then properly place the impoder [sic] of the case promoted by proposals and implementation by and for these implementation statutes. Next, the articles of association must be made subjects to the Education Act with a direct reference to immediate measures for these gifted students.

But sadly with regards to the educational policy about these gifted students in schools today whereby an in-depth continuing debate may be presented in its entirety, one experiences that going further into a complementary political debate at the present time may seem futile for now. Will by that notion rather present an expectant hope, that the correct political bodies can now have its final awakening surrounding the debate about gifted students as to the ongoing neglect and ineffective schooling at the expense of negligent involvement on the part of key political actors within school policy, whereby an ongoing skewed distribution is based on prevailing school policy surrounding the Norwegian gifted students in todays schooling programs.

Olsen: It would help if gifted children were legally entitled to individually adjusted education.

Jacobsen: What are some of the things that can help with early childhood education of the profoundly gifted, arguably the most sensitive ability category and exceptional ability category due to significant and obvious mentation differences from same-age peers?

Haereid: I am not sure to which degree one should split very young humans from each other. Everyone needs friends, and to feel socially connected. But assimilation is about using what one has, to everyone’s advantage. It’s not only about how to exploit giftedness, but how to use it for mankind’s best. It’s not a lack of motivation or to find the right path that is the main problem for the gifted child. The challenge is to provide circumstances that make this motivation endure.

To deny a profoundly gifted child its opportunities is as devastating as deny that child a normal social contact. Children need to play and have fun together. If parents and the adult society force prodigies to nurture their gift, it could end as catastrophic as forcing them to be normal.

As a system, one could give gifted children the opportunity to use their abilities, as in separated classes and with special teachers, some hours during the week, and at the same time imprint to the other children that this is not bad for them. I think this has to do with focusing on the other children’s abilities as well. The problem occurs when some define some children better than others, and not by defining some as good at something and others at other things.

Jørgensen: Since there are no clear guidelines within Norwegian public education, hereby understood as the Norwegian Directorate of Education (UDIR) and their exercise of diligence. The Directorate of Education is perceived as then of an weakening confidence, both in terms of idealistic and innovative innovations within the mentioned topic. Consequently, this is justified on the basis of their deficient appropriate indicators, which are indicatively strongly attached within their subsequent specific declarations minted directly at these gifted students and their God-given right to equal education. Thus promoted, as well as desirably presented, to be consolidated in accordance with the same principled statutes as to what their counterpart receives, hereby referring to the special education law’s statutory directives within Norwegian schools regarding student base recipients of special education.

Summed up, an explicit repeal of targeted legislation must be clarified on a point-by-point basis in the Education Act, where scholastic clearing implicators are given with the applicable indicative ratifications regarding; subject material, earmarked for state support by newly acquired competent pedagogical personnel who in turn can carry out targeted pedagogical activities, by and for gifted pupils in Norwegian schools with the assurance of equal education by «all» students hereby enshrined in the Norwegian Education Act.

Olsen: Personally, I believe that broader testing of all the pupils (not just of the “troublemakers”) and following up on the results would be an improvement. Sure, it would require more resources initially but I think it would pay off eventually.

Jacobsen: How does Mensa Norway deal with these issues?

Haereid: Eivind is the best man to answer this.

Jørgensen: This is best answered by Mr Olsen.

Olsen: We have our gifted children resource group that are working on this. As I mentioned previously, we’ve sent answers on a hearing regarding a suggested new law for education. And we have initiated a process to bring more information about gifted children to the schools and teachers, with one major point being that they shouldn’t assume that every gifted child will be fine on their own, “after all, they’re gifted so they’ll figure it out by themselves”.

Jacobsen: What are the age limits and provisions for the youngest members of Mensa Norway?

Haereid: Eivind…

Jørgensen: Do not know.

Olsen: The only qualifications needed to become a member initially is to have taken a valid intelligence test showing them to be in the top 2 %, and to pay the membership fee. There are no other eligibility requirements, such as age limits. That being said, we don’t have a very large percentage of non-adult members. This gives us the “chicken and egg”-problem; it can be tricky to provide for the social aspect when there’s not that many members in your own age group. There are other organisations that are focusing more on providing a social environment for the gifted children, such as Lykkelige Barn (“Happy children”, We’re more than happy to inform people about them, even if we’re not formally affiliated with them.

Jacobsen: What is the upper limit of the measurements of the Mensa Norway proctored and accepted tests, so the range of scores with the appropriate standard deviation?

Haereid: I don’t know.

Jørgensen: Again best answered by the Mensa Norway leader.

Olsen: The proctored test we provide has an upper limit of “IQ 135 or higher, at SD 15”. This is sufficient for our use, and for what most people would need. As for the other accepted tests: it depends. There are several, but we don’t have a complete list. Accepting (or not) external tests is the prerogative of our test psychologist.

I believe the normal WISC and WAIS tests go up to 160, with SD 15 as well.

Jacobsen: How can Mensa Norway and the high-range test community coordinate or work together more in some early steps of cooperation if not done at this time?

Haereid: My impression is that Mensa Norway is skeptical to this environment, not at least because they don’t rely on the authenticity of the tests, the norms, if the testees cooperate with someone and so on. It’s a homage to the cemented psychometric accepted tools, and a corresponding contempt for tests aspiring to measure intelligence, e.g. the amateur tests made by people who, some of them, scores among the highest on Mensa-accepted tests (like CFIT and WAIS).

One step is to create stricter IQ-norms and tests in the HR-environment. That could be done by constituting a leadership, an instance inside HR that put stars, like Michelin, on tests concerning their validity and reliability, and establishing common norms on those best tests (let’s say with 1, 2 or 3 stars). Then we could exclude the bad tests and every norm made by single creators.

A second step is to evolve some kind of control as to untimed tests. I think these tests are valuable because they measure something more than the timed “easy” ones. All proctored and accepted tests are timed. is a place that strives for something like this; they combine timed and untimed tests, and stretch for uniform norms.

I think a cooperation would be groundbreaking, and a step towards acceptance of more types of IQ-tests aiming to measure intelligence. Maybe the psychometricians, the psychologists, would disagree, because of the so far unstable construction of the HR-tests. But I think such a cooperation could benefit the whole IQ-environment in the long run.

Jørgensen: In the hope of experiencing some kind of early coexistence between Mensa Norway and the high-range community. Then a more sober lying policy must be in place first according to high-range communities within, whereby the implementations of body’s intentions depend on creating stability, as well as the correctness of their individual-based leading figurants with subsequent targeted infinites.

Only when this is in place, then one can look over to the “other” side to put it that way, in the sense of being beyond one`s own statute. The engraving species functional tasks are then understood out of its prominent being, where entrusted to its declaring mandate that a possible cooperation can be produced according to its organist functionalists consisting constructs.

Olsen: That’s a difficult question to answer, as there doesn’t really seem to be much of an active high-range IQ community in Norway. Perhaps the best suggestion I can give is the obvious one: join Mensa Norway, and put in some effort in the areas you wish. We’re more than happy to support initiatives that align with our constitutional goals.

Jacobsen: What seem like some of the barriers to the coordination and cooperation of the high-range communities with Mensa International or Mensa Norway, in particular, if taking into account many members of the high-range communities remain members of Mensa International via local or national representatives or chapters?

Haereid: Attaining more mutual respect. To gain respect you have to listen and look. And the first issue is as mentioned about the tests’ credibility.

Jørgensen: Well the foremost barrier concepts between their polarized thiogramic discrepancy hereby understood as Mensa International on one side, and the high-range communities on the other side. Will by that, start by addressing the explicitly construct with regards to their metronome autocratic forums, whereby it is presented within a presumed alienated statute surrounded by its self-exalted status to which the contaminating paradox is implied. The assessment of its legislative conditions of one’s identity is therefore produced through the consideration of its leading discrepancy consequently as a basis for the question formulated constructs. What does this mean, well simply explained, one must first clarify the grounds of factualization by the extent of which a common unionization is indeed feasible.

Secondly, hereby promotively understood by and for the leading homonymous fortifications and if it can again be proven realizable through a unification of the pole oriented structures regarding the conglomerate respectalizing and their processes, hereby promoted through their tentative extracts as to a possible positive outcome of respectable unionization between Mensa International and the high-range community. As for the outcome of unification of these polarized opponents, well one can only hope for a positive result in the end.

Olsen: For Norway, I think the problem is as mentioned in the previous answer: there just doesn’t seem to be any active high-range community here outside of Mensa Norway. If one such community were to exist, I might have had a more informative answer. As for the international scene, I don’t know whether there has been attempts at contact or why that didn’t come to fruition.

Jacobsen: What would make the consideration of the high-range community more serious within the regular mainstream testing community of Mensa International and others? How could Norway be a leader in this?

Haereid: Creating a leadership, common norms, “Michelin” stars on tests depending of factors that make a test as best as possible, timed or untimed. One problem is that “everyone” creates tests, and make norms, and there are no or just a little supervision or control. The statistical measures are not sufficient. But there are huge differences between the tests, and some authors are more into psychometrics than others. There should be some kind of qualification mark on the tests.

I think the Swedish guy Hans Sjöberg has started a good job here (creator of The HR community has to establish some common rules, and in cooperation with Mensa or professional psychometricians that want and believe in a future HR-environment with more serious tests gathered under an umbrella.

Jørgensen: Firstly, I guess that from Mensa International point of view with reference of recognition of its overall standard towards the high-range community, is hereby executive exemplary shown accordingly by the fact that the high-range communities is not perceived as a matter of nonsense, but could rather be considered hereby understood as a type of «social camaraderie», whereby means through common interests can lift the impletory impressions outwardly for the common good.

This can only be done by clarifying the «awareness of responsibility” by the high-range communities’ own standards through the equality of a uniform expression brought forward out of respect by one’s own reformatted forum. Only if this proves to be feasible, then the road can be laid further, where mutual understanding and recognition receive the necessary main focus that in turn may seem like the foundation of a hereby understood unison format.

Secondly, regarding Mensa Norway’s possibilities of lead a conglomerate of different online communities towards a conciliatory unison forum. Well if one can hereby look at the stamp of professionalism at its central core, with the understandable purpose of agreeing on common political values, where mutual respect, test correlations and their subsequent implicit functions fulfilled by allowing itself to come into play. Furthermore, to create a new platform that can also act as an intermediary between Mensa International and the high-range community, whereby the best of both worlds can create a new foundation that in turn can be distributed back outwards onto both sides by reasons as to strengthen the grassroots movement by preeminent purpose as to recruit on further, then we will bear witness of the proper consolidation.

Olsen: I’m not sure. We can’t make use of / accept the various high-range IQ tests until they’re accepted by our test psychologists (both nationally and internationally), and that’s probably not going to happen without a solid foundation, proper norming, etc.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1]  Erik Haereid has been a member of Mensa since 2013, and is among the top scorers on several of the most credible IQ-tests in the unstandardized HRT-environment. He is listed in the World Genius Directory. He is also a member of several other high IQ Societies.

Erik, born in 1963, grew up in OsloNorway, in a middle class home at Grefsen nearby the forest, and started early running and cross country skiing. After finishing schools he studied mathematics, statistics and actuarial science at the University of Oslo. One of his first glimpses of math-skills appeared after he got a perfect score as the only student on a five hour math exam in high school.

He did his military duty in His Majesty The King’s Guard (Drilltroppen)).

Impatient as he is, he couldn’t sit still and only studying, so among many things he worked as a freelance journalist in a small news agency. In that period, 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 also wrote some crime short stories in A-Magasinet (Aftenposten (one of the main newspapers in Norway), the same paper where he earned his runner up (second place) in a nationwide writing contest in 1985. He also wrote several articles in different newspapers, magazines and so on in the 1980s and early 1990s.

He earned an M.Sc. degree in Statistics and Actuarial Sciences in 1991, and worked as an actuary novice/actuary from 1987 to 1995 in several Norwegian Insurance companies. He was the Academic Director (1998-2000) of insurance at the BI Norwegian Business School (1998-2000), 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.

In 1989 he worked in a project in Dallas with a Texas computer company for a month incorporating a Norwegian pension product into a data system. Erik is specialized in life insurance and pensions, both private and business insurances. From 1991 to 1995 he was a main part of developing new life insurance saving products adapted to bank business (Sparebanken NOR), and he developed the mathematics behind the premiums and premium reserves.

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 among other things in history, philosophy and social psychology.

In 1995, he moved to Aalborg in Denmark because of a Danish girl he met. He worked as an insurance broker for one year, and took advantage of this experience later when he developed his own consultant company.

In Aalborg, he taught himself some programming (Visual Basic), and developed an insurance calculation software program which he sold to a Norwegian Insurance Company. After moving to Oslo with his girlfriend, he was hired as consultant by the same company to a project that lasted one year.

After this, he became the Manager of business insurance in the insurance company Norske Liv. At that time he had developed and nurtured his idea of establishing an actuarial consulting company, and he did this after some years on a full-time basis with his actuarial colleague. In the beginning, the company was small. He had to gain money, and worked for almost two years as an Academic Director of insurance at the BI Norwegian Business School.

Then the consultant company started to grow, and he quitted BI and used his full time in NIA (Nordic Insurance Administration). This was in 1998/99, and he has been there since.

NIA provides actuarial consulting services within the pension and life insurance area, especially towards the business market. They was one of the leading actuarial consulting companies in Norway through many years when Defined Benefit Pension Plans were on its peak and companies needed evaluations and calculations concerning their pension schemes and accountings. With the less complex, and cheaper, Defined Contribution Pension Plans entering Norway the last 10-15 years, the need of actuaries is less concerning business pension schemes.

Erik’s book from 2011, Benektelse og Verdighet, contains some thoughts about our superficial, often discriminating societies, where the virtue seems to be egocentrism without thoughts about the whole. Empathy is lacking, and existential division into “us” and “them” is a mental challenge with major consequences. One of the obstacles is when people with power – mind, scientific, money, political, popularity – defend this kind of mind as “necessary” and “survival of the fittest” without understanding that such thoughts make the democracies much more volatile and threatened. When people do not understand the genesis of extreme violence like school killings, suicide or sociopathy, asking “how can this happen?” repeatedly, one can wonder how smart man really is. The responsibility is not limited to let’s say the parents. The responsibility is everyone’s. The day we can survive, mentally, being honest about our lives and existence, we will take huge leaps into the future of mankind.

[2] Tor Arne Jørgensen is a member of 50+ high IQ societies, including World Genius Directory, NOUS High IQ Society, 6N High IQ Society just to name a few. He has several IQ scores above 160+ sd15 among high range tests like Gift/Gene Verbal, Gift/Gene Numerical of Iakovos Koukas and Lexiq of Soulios.

Tor Arne was also in 2019, nominated for the World Genius Directory 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe. He is the only Norwegian to ever have achieved this honor. He has also been a contributor to the Genius Journal Logicon, in addition to being the creater of, where he is the designer of now eleven HR-tests of both verbal/numerical varient.

His further interests are related to intelligence, creativity, education developing regarding gifted students. Tor Arne has an bachelor`s degree in history and a degree in Practical education, he works as a teacher within the following subjects: History, Religion, and Social Studies.

[3] Eivind Olsen is the current chair of Mensa Norway. He has scored “135 or higher” (SD15) on the test used by Mensa Norway. He has also previously been tested with WISC-R and Raven’s. He recently took the MOCA test and aced it. When he’s not busy herding cats, he works in IT. He sometimes spends time with family and friends.

Eivind Olsen is a member of Mensa Norway since 2014, having filled various roles since then (chair of Mensa Bergen regional group, national test coordinator, deputy board member, and now chair).

He was born in Bergen, Norway, in 1976, but has lived in a few other places in Norway, including military service in the far north of the country.

Since he got bored at school and didn’t have any real idea what he wanted to do, he took vocational school where he studied electronics repair. He has worked in a different field ever since (IT operations).

He is currently residing in Bergen, Norway, with his significant other, 2+2 offspring, 2 cats and a turtle.

[4] Individual Publication Date: March 15, 2021:; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2021:

*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. Norwegians of the High-Range Discussion with Erik Haereid, Eivind Olsen, and Tor Arne Jørgensen: Statistician & Actuarial Scientist; Chair, Mensa Norway; 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (3) [Online]. March 2021; 26(D). Available from:

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2021, March 15). Norwegians of the High-Range Discussion with Erik Haereid, Eivind Olsen, and Tor Arne Jørgensen: Statistician & Actuarial Scientist; Chair, Mensa Norway; 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (3). Retrieved from

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Norwegians of the High-Range Discussion with Erik Haereid, Eivind Olsen, and Tor Arne Jørgensen: Statistician & Actuarial Scientist; Chair, Mensa Norway; 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (3). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 26.D, March. 2021. <>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2021. Norwegians of the High-Range Discussion with Erik Haereid, Eivind Olsen, and Tor Arne Jørgensen: Statistician & Actuarial Scientist; Chair, Mensa Norway; 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (3).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 26.D.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “Norwegians of the High-Range Discussion with Erik Haereid, Eivind Olsen, and Tor Arne Jørgensen: Statistician & Actuarial Scientist; Chair, Mensa Norway; 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (3).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 26.D (March 2021).

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Norwegians of the High-Range Discussion with Erik Haereid, Eivind Olsen, and Tor Arne Jørgensen: Statistician & Actuarial Scientist; Chair, Mensa Norway; 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (3)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 26.D. Available from: <>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Norwegians of the High-Range Discussion with Erik Haereid, Eivind Olsen, and Tor Arne Jørgensen: Statistician & Actuarial Scientist; Chair, Mensa Norway; 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (3)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 26.D.,

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “Norwegians of the High-Range Discussion with Erik Haereid, Eivind Olsen, and Tor Arne Jørgensen: Statistician & Actuarial Scientist; Chair, Mensa Norway; 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (3).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 26.D (2021): March. 2021. Web. <>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Norwegians of the High-Range Discussion with Erik Haereid, Eivind Olsen, and Tor Arne Jørgensen: Statistician & Actuarial Scientist; Chair, Mensa Norway; 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (3) [Internet]. (2021, March 26(D). Available from:

License and Copyright


In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at


© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2021. 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 and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Comments are closed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: