Talk:Christopher Langan

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change

Known for: High IQ

into

Known for: Claiming to have a high IQ

There is no evidence of his high IQ _whatsoever_. He claims it himself and some uncritical journalists copied his claim. No records of extraordinary IQ. 62.144.231.236 (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

agreed, there is no reliable iq test that goes beyond 160, so that alone is reason enough to doubt his purported 195 - 210 iq 2600:8800:1E9C:6900:2D0C:D161:1DF4:C219 (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Just arrived at this page today, brought by an edit on a page I watch. I am surprised we have this IQ claim in here, because it is fairly well recognised that IQ scores in the 200 range were only possible when children were given IQ tests that included an age adjustment, as for Marilyn vos Savant. That doesn't seem to be the case here. I do not know this subject, but my first look at this makes me think this is largely a self publicist and I am not clear what the actual claim to notability is. In any case, a secondary source should be found to support the IQ claim. I'll need to do a fair bit of reading before making any changes, but there does seem to be work to do here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

OK here is what I have found. It seems clear that the principal verifiable claim to a high IQ store is for the Mega Society's mega test.. This is referenced in a book I have added to the Bibliography.^[1]

However, what is unverified at this point, but seems possible, is that he took an earlier test as a child, thus leading to his taking the Mega Test. That is mere speculation on my part, as there are no claims to it. All actual claims to a verified test are to Hoeflin's mega test. Which gives a number but has a fairly massive problem. The mega test really doesn't tell us anything about those who ace it, except that they are good at the mega test. On the Marilyn vos Savant page we have this:

The second test reported by Guinness was Hoeflin's Mega Test, taken in the mid-1980s. The Mega Test yields IQ standard scores obtained by multiplying the subject's normalized z-score, or the rarity of the raw test score, by a constant standard deviation and adding the product to 100, with Savant's raw score reported by Hoeflin to be 46 out of a possible 48, with a 5.4 z-score, and a standard deviation of 16, arriving at a 186 IQ. The Mega Test has been criticized by professional psychologists as improperly designed and scored, "nothing short of number pulverization".^[2]

And on Mega Society page we say;

No professionally designed and validated IQ test claims to distinguish test-takers at the one-in-a-million level of rarity of score. The standard score range of the Stanford–Binet IQ test is 40 to 160.^[3] The standard scores on most other currently normed IQ tests fall in the same range. A score of 160 corresponds to a rarity of about 1 person in 31,560 (leaving aside error of measurement common to all IQ tests), which falls short of the Mega Society's 1 in a million requirement.^[4] IQ scores above this level have been criticized as being dubious as there are insufficient normative cases upon which to base a statistically justified rank-ordering.^[5][6] Very high or very low IQ scores are less reliable than IQ scores nearer to the population median.^[7]

So what to do? Langan is known for being a high IQ individual, even if the detail is rather spurious. It is not just a claim. There seems to be a verifiable but debatable number. I think the answer is not to change the "known for" on the page, but this detail needs to go into the article. Thus  Not done, sorry. I will, however, edit the article soon (unless someone else does first).

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

What about: "Known for: High self-reported IQ"? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

He is known for high IQ. The high score (on a problematic test) is verifiable. It is not just self reported. As he is a founder of the Mega Society, there is an independence issue mind. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Strike "he is is founder of Mega Society". He is, in fact, founder of "Mega Foundation", and seems to have lost a court case over the trademark . There is a reference that says he has a society that merged with Mega Society. It's all a bit of a tangle, but the sentence was not correct. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that's pushing the bounds of WP:V as I don't think we'd consider the Megas -- any of 'em -- a reliable source. Even if it weren't an inherently unreliable thing, a primary source, and a COI. But if the balance of our secondary sources report that's the case, then good enough. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The information is in the Guinness Book of Records (1988 edition. They don't list IQ any longer for some excellent reasons). See page 16 here: . Langan took the test under the pseudonym of Hart, but he definitely took it. Indeed, he took it twice, and scored 47 on his second attempt. The test claimed it could only be taken once though. On his first attempt it seems he scored 42, but I have not been able to verify that score. There was a dispute in the pages of Noesis over the applicability of a score Langan had achieved in another earlier test. That test, however, made no claims to measure IQ accurately at the tail of the distribution, unlike the Mega Test that was specifically designed to do just that. We could make lots of arguments about what the Mega Test does or does not show, but there is no doubt that Langan was one of just a small number of test takers to score very highly on that test. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You admit that you don't know much about the subject of IQ testing, so this entire spiel seems fatuous. In actuality, psychologists do not regard the Mega Test as an accurate measurement of IQ whatsoever. It was devised by a single Russian philosopher with no formal qualifications in the field of psychometrics, did not abide the standard practice of test construction, and was finally published in a pop-magazine. It's also not proctored. Ergo, it is definitionally not a proper IQ test (no more so than any random online test can be said to be a proper IQ test), not just "at the tail end of the distribution", but more fundamentally and generally. Moreover, one of the quotations in this article: "The Mega Test, among other IQ tests, has been criticised for blurring specific domain knowledge with generalised intelligence, although "most psychologists can agree that they measure something valuable." provides a citation which does not support the quote as it is worded. The citation to this quote specifically says that psychologists can mostly agree that *IQ tests* measure something valuable, referring to real IQ tests. It is not meant to suggest, as this quote attempts to insinuate and erroneously conflate, that the Mega Test is such an IQ test; so it is not saying 'The Mega Test measures something valuable', it is saying that of actual IQ tests instead, of which the Mega Test is not. 154.5.50.30 (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I did not admit I don't know much about the subject of IQ testing. I said I didn't know much about this page subject (Langan). Since then I have done very considerable reading about him. As for the other matter, take a look at the other source in that paragraph (Carlson, 1991). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The source you're referencing reaffirms *my* point, not yours. 154.5.50.30 (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

And that you thought otherwise does seem to suggest you aren't as knowledgeable as you might believe with regards to the subject of IQ testing. 154.5.50.30 (talk) 08:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

This discussion is moving at glacial speeds. A problem that creates is that I have long since returned Test Critiques VIII and I am not going running to the library every two months when this comes back again. From memory (and my memory is generally pretty good), the source I'm referencing describes the good and bad of the Mega Test, severely criticises its attempts to place those tested at the top end of the distribution, and other aspects of how it is administered. It supports that domain knowledge is confused with IQ in the test, and that it may just test for those with good research skills. It does not find the testing useless, it finds no basis for using it to test IQ at the top end of the distribution. This is an accurate summary, yes?

Now look at what Aviv says:

Hoeflin’s Mega Test was published in Omni magazine in 1985 as the “World’s Most Difficult IQ Test.” It’s composed of counter- intuitive analogies— “Pain is to Rue, as Bread is to ?”—and math problems that tell stories about floating barges and “cubicle chunks of cheese.” Thousands of people have taken it. (John Sununu, the former chief of staff under George H.W. Bush, found it “a superbly stimulating diversion.”)
Although IQ tests fail to really define what intelligence is in the first place (often knowledge gets blurred with ability), most psychologists can agree that they measure something valuable— whatever that is.

She says what she says with reference specifically to the Mega Test, and psychologists agree (as above) that the Mega Test will test for something, but that something may be confused with domain knowledge and research skills. So to be clear, neither of us think that the Mega Test finds ultra high IQ individuals. The sources don't say that either, and neither does the page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll grant that my experience editing (and especially creating) entries here on WP is limited, if not nonexistent, but I was under the impression that articles about individuals were limited to people who have done something noteworthy. As far as I can tell, outside of a (scrubbed?) interview with the Daily Wire, Langan has A, claimed to have a high IQ, B, started a club with a limited membership, and C, drafted a completely untestable and unfalsifiable idea about existence. If those alone serve as qualifications for a Wiki article, then there are about a few thousand articles that need to be written about quite a few other randos on the internet.

(Also, I wonder why, if this article actually should exist, at least the first few paragraphs read like a weirdly glowing autobiography as opposed to an encyclopedia entry?) Mishyana (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Articles exist if the topic is notable. Notable means mentioned in more than a passing way in reliable sources. That is all it means. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It specifically says "significant coverage in reliable sources". At least speaking anecdotally, I had no idea this guy existed prior to a skeptic video on him and his DW interview randomly popping into my youtube feed just yesterday. Not really sure that qualifies as significant. Mishyana (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Same here, but 'I'd heard of him before' isn't part of the GNG. His namedrop by Gladwell and the coverage of his extremist political antics seem to qualify him as 'notable'. Having a Wikipedia article on you isn't a reward for having done something useful with your life. It can also be a cautionary tale... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Chris Langan is not an "extremist." That is ridiculous. Also, his work on the CTMU is absolutely a notable accomplishment that has positively impacted many folks' lives and stands as a formidable theory of Metaphysics.

His positive contributions to humanity should be highlighted more on his page because, as evidenced in this comment thread, people who admit to knowing nothing about him seem to jump on the hate-train based entirely on what other editors of his article have written. People who know almost nothing about his work shouldn't be claiming he hasn't done anything important, much less calling for the removal of his whole page. LiberMundi (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Your argument here seems to be "This guy isn't an extremist and should have an article because I really like him", which just... no. Secondly, his "positive contributions to humanity" are questionable at best; Wikipedia entries on individuals are supposed to be encyclopedia entries, not gushing autobiographies. If you're that enamored of him, the self-publishing link for Amazon Books is one New Tab away. Mishyana (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I am all for keeping the article encyclopedic. I haven't suggested anything about wanting it to idolize him. I want the article to be fair, unlike you apparently. I'm the one advocating for a more encyclopedic quality, not you.

It has become the de facto standard on Wikipedia apparently that anyone remotely conservative is going to have an article where The Edit Police forcefully character-assassinate the person while downplaying everything they have done. That's what you're doing. I'm willing to bet anything you haven't read his papers, and that you know nothing non-trivial about his work; you aren't in any position to "question" the significance of his contributions. LiberMundi (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Omnipaedista I don't think this link is necessary nor useful, nor does it meet the caveat in WP:SELFRED. the CTMU is the title of section 3 of the article, linked by that exact name immediately following the paragraph to which you have linked the text. Two hyperlinks to the same section a few lines apart are clear WP:OVERLINK. SELFRED allows that links are possible in particular on long articles that cannot be viewed all at once on an average-sized computer screen. I see the section heading on my screen, and this is not a very long article. And, as I say, the link to the section is in the TOC directly below the paragraph you added the link to, so it is right there even if the section is a scroll away. What is the benefit? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It is definitely not an OVERLINK because no other links point to that section in this article. Links to sections within the same article are commonly used on Wikipedia to facilitate navigation—even in small articles such as this one. If you strongly feel that the link should be removed, you are welcome to revert my edit—I’m fine with that. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

You say no other links point to that section in this article, but count on 65 words in the article and there is such a link. Look, this is what is presented to the reader's browser there:

<a href="#Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe"><span class="tocnumber">3</span> <span class="toctext">Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe</span></a>

That is clearly a link to the section in this article, and extremely close to the one you added. I just don't see the utility of the extra link. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Not sure I'm getting the message across. It is fine to include a single link to a section in the article's lead to facilitate navigation. I added one link (so WP:OVERLINK does not apply), not multiple ones, and the link is not to the article itself but to a section of it. WP:SELFRED ("linking to a title that redirects to a section or anchor within the article [...] is acceptable, as it facilitates navigation") clearly applies here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe the utility of a link in the lead is mainly for longer articles than this and, in particular, where the link is to a relevant section that is not already eponymously titled (and thus linked by the automatic anchor link, under the exact same text within a sentence or two of the other link). You appear to think this is okay because the anchor is not an editor created wikilink. I think it is clearly overlink because the reader impression is of two identical links very close together, and I think hyperlinks are distracting (because they encourage the reader to click the link rather than complete reading the paragraph). However I have decided that I do not think it is sufficiently wrong for me to revert you're re-addition, even though you indicated you would allow that. Unless a third opinion arrives with a clear reason for or against the link, I'll leave it there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think this is justified. The topic is not independently notable, and the article is not long. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I have now removed the wikilink. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear wiki Team,

I am writing to provide important information regarding the Mega Test and the claims made by Christopher Langan regarding his IQ. The Mega Test, which Langan used to support his extraordinarily high IQ score, has faced significant scrutiny and has been widely criticized by both the scientific community and organizations that assess intelligence.

Here are the key issues with the Mega Test and why it has been dismissed by reputable bodies: Test Integrity and Multiple Attempts: The Mega Test was designed to be taken once, but Langan, among others, retook it under a pseudonym. This practice is in direct violation of the test’s intended methodology, leading to questions about the validity of the results. Renorming Issues: Initially, a score of 42 out of 48 on the Mega Test was predicted to indicate an IQ of 173-174. However, this has been renormed multiple times based on data from other test takers, reducing the range to 159-169. This frequent renorming undermines the accuracy of the test. Exclusion by Reputable Organizations: Mensa, the globally recognized high IQ society, does not accept results from the Mega Test for membership, citing issues with its validity and scoring system. Furthermore, the Guinness Book of Records discontinued listing the highest IQs in 1990 because of concerns about the Mega Test’s reliability. Scientific Criticism: The Mega Test has been criticized for blurring the lines between domain-specific knowledge and generalized intelligence. Its format and scoring mechanism have been found to be problematic, as it may measure factors like resourcefulness rather than pure intelligence. Statistical Concerns: Given the small sample size and lack of a standard comparison group, the Mega Test’s results cannot be considered a statistically valid measure of intelligence. The standard error of the test, coupled with its 48-question format, makes it difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions about an individual’s cognitive abilities based on this test alone.

Due to these issues, the Mega Test is not seen as a legitimate or reliable measure of intelligence by experts in the field of psychology.

I hope this provides clarity on the problematic nature of the Mega Test and the reasons why its results are not recognized by credible organizations.

Best regards, Constantine Ganosis 195.97.100.3 (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Er... did you actually read the article? See paragraph 3 under the IQ testing heading. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Er... you probably didn't get what the meaning behind of it in reality check way. Right? When two of the well known and reputable organization dropping out such a thing. That means it's not legitimate. Because all the IQ tests from a reputable sources have a specific timeframe. So you cannot take a nap in between or you cannot take a second time test. Think it in this way. And I guess or at least I hope with your eye whatever it is, you come across the bottom line of the things. 195.97.100.3 (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

It may well be worth mentioning criticism of the Mega test in the lead. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe the Mega Test is not a trustworthy or scientifically valid measure of intelligence. One obvious red flag is the fact that some people claim they were able to fall asleep while taking it — that is far from normal and seriously questionable. A test that allows for such disengagement cannot be considered rigorous or reliable.

By contrast, official IQ and EQ assessments administered by recognized institutions — such as the WAIS or Stanford-Binet — are designed with strict protocols. These tests are typically limited to around 30 minutes, conducted in controlled environments, and interpreted by trained professionals. You usually pay a modest fee to cover administrative costs, and the test is taken only once. What you score is what you get — there is no room for repetition, second-guessing, or endless deliberation.

Online “Mega IQ” tests, however, often allow unlimited time and, in many cases, multiple attempts. That completely undermines the integrity of the results. A test that permits unlimited time doesn’t measure quick cognitive processing — it measures patience, persistence, or even external help. And allowing people to retake the test means the final score can be more about trial and error than actual intellect.

We should not place these online tests on the same level of credibility as those developed and administered by licensed psychologists or organizations such as Mensa. They may be fun, puzzling, or intellectually stimulating, but they are not valid indicators of cognitive ability. Presenting them as equivalent is misleading — and potentially harmful — especially for people who rely on such scores for self-assessment or social comparison.195.97.100.3 (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we know that IQ tests in general are dubious but this page is to discuss actionable proposal to improve the article. An aim to "Remove page" (delete this article?) will not succeed–see WP:N. If you have a proposal to change text in the article, please state it clearly. Otherwise, there is no need to continue here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The simplest solution is to say the Mega test is not particularly credible in the lead. It's probably the case that Mega itself is particularly dubious. Psychometrics produces some valid stuff. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

There would need to be a reliable source discussing the subject of this article (Langan) which makes that point. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not clear what the IP wants. Johnuniq asked them that, so we can see if there is any proposal from them. But it is very clear that we already cover criticism of the test in the article body, culminating in the "number pulverisation" quote. The information is reliably sourced, so I think that's all fine. As to whether we cover the criticism of the test in the lead: well the article is about Langan, not the test. We only say he scored highly on a test that gained him entry into a society and, briefly, the record books. All that is true. Langan is known for that, and it is neutral point of view. He also underwent an evaluation for a television programme, which is also not standardised testing, but it was broadcast that he scored highly. He is known for scoring highly, but we have removed all the dubious numbers being thrown around. I think any change to the lead that summarised paragraph 3 of the IQ testing section would have to be written carefully to maintain neutral point of view. We do not assert that the Mega Test provided any meaningful result. We assert that his taking the test was what got him known. Perhaps we could call it a "non standard" IQ test or something, but if we spent too many words describing its flaws in the lead, it may not look neutral. And, btw, the page subject is already furious about how we are "attacking" him in this page, and has railed against it in public fora. I'm untroubled by that, but we need to be scrupulously neutral all the same. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be asking to remove the entire page for Christopher Langan over the IQ section debate? If so, you completely ignoring the work he has done on the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, which is a theory worthy of research by anyone interested in modern Metaphysics and ToEs; his notion of "conspansive duality" also has implications for Quantum mechanics. If you want to debate the IQ section, go right ahead, but saying his whole page should be removed goes way too far. I think Langan's works should be much better explained on his article page to give him more credit for his very novel concepts, rather than making it read more like a non-neutral hit-piece on someone who's at odds with the mainstream Intelligentsia. Wikipedia should strive to have a reputation as being a place where important and interesting information can be found, rather than being used as a weapon for gatekeeping out perceived "heretics". LiberMundi (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

No one is seriously suggesting removing the page, and I can pretty much guaranty this would survive AfD if anyone tried, so no need to resurrect an old discussion on that concern. However, we don't need to say more about CTMU because it is not, in fact, "very novel". Langan has repackaged idealism inside a torturous set of semantic games. The concepts are nothing new, even if the vocabulary is. We can say more about it here if any secondary sources sit up and take it seriously, but no one is taking it seriously, so we have nothing to work with. If someone discusses why Langan's theory is important and interesting, we can summarise that source. The fact that no one does this shows it is neither important nor very interesting.

As for heretics: I do wonder why people who claim to be Christians like what Langan says about God. One can only suppose they either don't understand Langan or they don't understand Christian theology. But that's a whole other matter. If we had a reliable secondary source on the theology of Langan, that would be intersting. We could write about that. But you see - we go off the sources. We need them first. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The title of the comment I replied to is literally "Remove page"; that's what I was replying to.

It's ironic that you're saying we can't expand a section on the CTMU because people don't know about it, yet perhaps one of the reasons people don't know about it is because the article elides almost everything about it while extensively expanding Culture War criticisms. Curt Jaimungal, a respected academically-oriented YouTuber and Substack writer who has interviewed other luminaries in the space of "Theories of Everything", spent "weeks" studying Langan's CTMU in preparation for his four-hour-long interview with Chris. Curt Jaimungal's questions were very thoughtful and showed he had seriously read Langan's papers. This is not the typical form of "peer review" expected in academic circles, but it's still significant consideration by an academic, and we live in an era where alternative forms of media are used by everyone, including academics, to discuss interesting and important ideas. That four-hour interview has over 1 million views. The two-hour interview with Michael Knowles has over 12M views. How many people read a typical academic paper? It strains credulity to say Chris is just an obscure nobody that nobody knows or cares about. It seems more like you're really trying to say "nobody I care about cares about Chris", which is not a standard for Wikipedia.

It's also ironic that you're saying the page's content must follow citations when much of the cultural criticisms levied against Chris cite nothing. Per your strictness, to be consistent, I guess you would support removal of those criticisms as well since they lack citations?

Although I think Langan considers himself as some kind of Christian, he would probably be considered non-denominational Protestant at most. He has said that he does not believe that Christ is the only path to salvation. His concept of God in the CTMU is very different from the Trinity (e.g. Jesus is not identical to God and no God the Father "sitting on a throne"). He seems to believe in interpreting scriptures metaphorically and logically, rather than through the Church. I think many common-sense non-denominational Christians would probably look at his work with an open-mind, and that in my opinion is a good thing. LiberMundi (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

1. The title of the comment is irrelevant since it is months old, and resolved. No one is deleting this page.
2. It's ironic that you're saying we can't expand a section on the CTMU because people don't know about it. But that's not what I'm saying at all. I do know about it. I read way too much about it. What I said is no one takes his repotted radical idealism seriously. No one is writing about it. Those who have given it time have quickly spotted the flaws, and found nothing of substance in it to write about. It is the fact that no secondary sources exist that means a tertiary encyclopaedic article about the CTMU is impossible.
3. No, we don't use YouTube and Substack here, because those are self published sources.
4. It strains credulity to say Chris is just an obscure nobody that nobody knows or cares about. And no one here is saying that. He is notable. People have written about him. We write about what people have written.
5. What criticisms do you think are unsourced?
6. I wasn't talking about what Langan thinks he is, religiously. I was talking about his followers.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Scientists are not interested in Langan's prose. They are interested in:

• his math;
• his original predictions, which follow logically from such math. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Or at least, they would be if he provided any. Perhaps what you meant to say. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if he provided the math. If he didn't, his work is a subject of literary criticism, rather than physics. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah ok. To confirm then, he doesn't, except for a brief foray into naïve set theory, which is not exactly rigorous. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Yup, it means his claim that he wrote a theory of physics is WP:CB. It would be like me claiming that I'm a great mathematician, but I never learned to solve differential equations.

CTMU is a narrative, not physics. With much indulgence, it could be called philosophy. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Most of the claims in Langan's biography are just taken directly from Outliers, which has been widely criticized for its poor standards of evidence (among other things). Of the rest, a large portion are from Esquire, (which, as WP:RSVETTING points out, has a history of intentionally altering material) and Average Joe: Be the Silicon Valley Tech Genius, a self-help book by someone with no prior journalistic experience.

I think it's appropriate to remove the more promotional claims that come only from these low-quality sources, like that Langan "earned a perfect score on the SAT despite taking a nap during the test," his scholarship offers, his two periods in college, and a whole list of jobs. Re: his position as Director of Research at Virtual Logistix, the cited source is just an interview promoting his book.

I also removed the extended paragraph about how Gladwell compared him to Oppenheimer. The salient part (that the comparison was made) is in the lede; Gladwell's exact argument doesn't seem relevant to Langan's life.

What do you think about the paragraph addressing his early life? Plinthist (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we need more than your say so about Outliers before we discard it, and everything in it, as a source. What are the criticisms? Who is saying so? As for Esquire and RSVETTING, we have one anecdote in RSVETTING, and RSVETTING is an essay, not policy nor guidance. It is still a suitable caution, but Esquire is not listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and although it has a lot of mentions at WP:RSN I am not seeing any conclusions that it is generally unreliable or deprecated. Is there any reason to think any of this information is incorrect?

I don't agree that the comparison with Oppenheimer is not salient, since that was his whole thesis, and a core part of why this subject is notable at all. Of course, I wrote that part, so I would say that! But we have space to explain what Gladwell said in the article body, and further, we need to have information in the body if it is to be in the lead. The lead must summarise the main. See WP:LEAD.

Finally, I agree with you that saying he took a nap in his SAT is problematic. We have a secondary source telling us he did, but a little critical thinking makes it clear that this must be an anecdote that Langan tells. No one but Langan knows he took a nap, and the source simply states Langan's anecdote as fact. I'd be happier with a wording that makes that clear, or I might be happy with that deletion. I'm open to discussion on the point. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

tthis man is a clear charlatan, why do you let these "claims x seemingly retain veracity in this article Thaneofslavia (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

he's a charlatan, yes. and that what he is referred to and will be remembered as. and because enough people noticed and discussed this person, wikipedia finds it appropriate to have an article on said person, summarizing all the things people and reliable sources said about this person.

the article might have presented him in too much of a positive light, but that's an content issue - we should improve the article instead of removing it.

we don't write "he's a charlatan" in the first sentence partially because there's ambiguity on what "charlatan" means, or whether can this word be used to represent any objective fact at all (eg, its definition varies by one's subjectivity). and because Wikipedia prefers to state objective, non-opinion stuff in the first sentence, it settles (currently) on the equivalent of "he's a farmer...and is involved with outrageous IQ claims". 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 03:22, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that being a charlatan is the same thing as being wrong. People can be wrong, even if they are honest. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

(off-topic) my opinion is that some of his theories* does not have enough falsifiability (and details) for it to be interrogated as a philosophy, and lacks predictive power to do experiments empirically - and are thus just-so stories that cannot be either right or wrong, aka the "not even wrong" type.

> *"some of his theories" because i only had a few glimpses of his posts/videos. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 03:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Let's remember that he did not graduate from a university. You can't assume that everyone understands how science works. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a fair point.

I think people like me would be far less mad at him had he not use scientific-sounding terms to describe his ideas / claiming it to be scientific. But what do I know - I'm just an elementary school student^[Joke] and also never graduated from a university. I agree that my opinions are stained by my emotions that I should probably not be editing the article (significantly). 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 05:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

There are many people with a Master's degree or a PhD in science, who think that their degree gives them carte blanche to ignore what science says. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not disagree. Actually, I strongly agree. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 05:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)