Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Josiah Thompson]

Jack,

I don't want to make too much of this, but some of those you have been dealing with have extremely high IQs. I would estimate that David S. Lifton has an IQ around 150, for example, and David W. Mantik and John P. Costella have to have similarly high IQs. My GCT (General Classification Test) was 152. That doesn't mean I know everything, but only that I'm pretty good at taking things apart and putting them together--not physical things, as my wife would tell you, but matters intellectual. From your post of 4 May 2010, I take it you discovered that philosophers average around 160 and scientists around 159. Well, I am a philosopher and Judyth is a scientist, so I take that as indirect confirmation of what I am saying. That much should have been obvious even from her early accomplishments as a high-school student. She was a prodigy. Judyth not only has an extremely high IQ but knows more and in more detail about events in New Orleans than anyone else, in my estimation. She cannot have learned these things from reading, because she has often corrected them with new data not previously known. And in the case of controversies over interpretations of events, she has proven herself to be more able than anyone else on his thread, as I have lived through it. My familiarity with IQ is also theoretical, by the way, since I published THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE (2005) on the nature of mind and the emergence of human mentality from those of earlier species, including animal mind and primate mind. There is a lot there on intelligence as the ability to learn. I think this is not a subject to which you have given as much attention as have I. Going by your data, I am not equal to the average for philosophers! It is easy to make too much of IQ as those who tout their membership in MENSA often do. Measures of ability are not also measures of accomplishment, which requires effort, discipline, and perseverance. Very few philosophers, for example, publish as many articles and books as I have. That's just something I happen to be good at. I am not equally good at everything, including mathematics.

Jim

I’ve been laughing my tail off ever since I got the following “release” from a subscriber to the “DSL News Service.” It’s difficult to type... I’m still laughing so hard!!” Here it is:

DSL News Service (5/6/10; 12:02)- - - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Headline: Fetzer Divulges His Estimate of Lifton's IQ

Subhead: Claims His Is Two Points Higher

Tonight, on the London Education Forum, Dr. Jim Fetzer, Ph.D., has publicly announced his estimate of the IQ of David S. Lifton, author of Best Evidence. Fetzer says Lifton has an IQ of 150. In that same dispatch, Fetzer divulged that his own IQ has been measured at 152, which he apparently believes makes him superior to Lifton, but (as Lifton points out) this conclusion may not be warranted as this small difference may be within the " margin of error."

It is rumored that in future posts, Fetzer may release measurements of the size of his cerebellum, and exact measurements regarding his corpus callosum, and the length and size (around the circumference) of his brain stem.

Dr. David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., – a Rancho Park radiologist – has been called on the case, and asked to give estimates of brain weight. In a remark that was apparently not meant to be overheard, Mantik was overheard muttering that, based on certain X-ray evidence, Fetzer may have an empty cranium.

* * *

Josiah Thompson

[Doug Weldon]

Dean,

If you will re-read my post you'll note that I acknowledged your right to your own opinion. But, we're not talking about your SPECIAL 3 YEAR LONG circumstances! We are talking about individual human beings (Jim's friends) whom you know nothing about aside from what Jim has told you. Therefore, what you claimed to be necessarily true about Jim's friends is demonstrably a false statement. Your judgment of them is not necessarily accurate. This is logically inescapable, and--as such--it is therefore a false statement.

I will not call you names nor will I defend myself from you calling me names. We are adults.

MonK:

Your point is well taken but I think these criticisms of Dean are exaggerated. Any of us, rightly or wrongly and probably wrongly, would be more skeptical of the testimony of a homeless person. A common jury instruction is that the jury can consider the demeanor of the witnesses and the manner in which they testify. This started with Jim criticizing that Dean was not impressed with the demeanor of watching Judyth. Jim attacked him and Dean then became defensive. He can judge things as he wishes and he would not be alone in his observations of Judyth or his skepticism of homeless people being the sole substantiation of points made by Judyth. Dean has been a valuable contributor and participant in the forum. I believe this is a diversion from the isues and we should move on.

Doug Weldon

[Dean Hagerman]

I will not call you names nor will I defend myself from you calling me names. We are adults.

Did I miss something Greg?

I have not nor would I ever call you a name

Well then, you still might consider me "cool" as opposed to "uncool"-- I guess?

Let me elaborate on what I said in order to make my position clearer. Dean, I don't claim to know what your 3 year long experience with homeless people was like. But, I have no reason to doubt that you are telling the truth about your personal perception of them. If you thought I was saying that your reportage of your Seattle Homeless experience was untrue--I apologize. That is NOT what I was saying.

That is what I got from part of your post

Thank you for clearing it up

[Greg Burnham]

Now do you see why I have a strong opinion Greg

If you say yes I see why you have a strong opinion I promise I will never bring up the subject of Bums again

You have my word

Yes, I see why you have a strong opinion [about bums].

However, Jim's friends are NOT "bums" -- Jim never identified them as "bums" -- So, let's continue this thread about Judyth and her credibility and admit ALL evidence--even that which comes from formerly homeless persons (not bums), or from Mormons (not polygamists), or from Catholic priests (not pedophiles), or from Germans (not Nazis), etc, etc.

[Dean Hagerman]

Dean,

If you will re-read my post you'll note that I acknowledged your right to your own opinion. But, we're not talking about your SPECIAL 3 YEAR LONG circumstances! We are talking about individual human beings (Jim's friends) whom you know nothing about aside from what Jim has told you. Therefore, what you claimed to be necessarily true about Jim's friends is demonstrably a false statement. Your judgment of them is not necessarily accurate. This is logically inescapable, and--as such--it is therefore a false statement.

I will not call you names nor will I defend myself from you calling me names. We are adults.

MonK:

Your point is well taken but I think these criticisms of Dean are exaggerated. Any of us, rightly or wrongly and probably wrongly, would be more skeptical of the testimony of a homeless person. A common jury instruction is that the jury can consider the demeanor of the witnesses and the manner in which they testify. This started with Jim criticizing that Dean was not impressed with the demeanor of watching Judyth. Jim attacked him and Dean then became defensive. He can judge things as he wishes and he would not be alone in his observations of Judyth or his skepticism of homeless people being the sole substantiation of points made by Judyth. Dean has been a valuable contributor and participant in the forum. I believe this is a diversion from the isues and we should move on.

Doug Weldon

Well said Doug, I am feeling like I have to defend myself against Jims attacks on me, maybe I should let it go

Im willing to move forward

[Cliff Varnell]

I believe this is a diversion from the isues and we should move on.

Is that what this thread is, a discussion of real issues?

I think at this point the thread needs to be hijacked!

In military terms this thread has turned into "bouncing the rubble."

[Dean Hagerman]

Now do you see why I have a strong opinion Greg

If you say yes I see why you have a strong opinion I promise I will never bring up the subject of Bums again

You have my word

Yes, I see why you have a strong opinion [about bums].

However, Jim's friends are NOT "bums" -- Jim never identified them as "bums" -- So, let's continue this thread about Judyth and her credibility and admit ALL evidence--even that which comes from formerly homeless persons (not bums), or from Mormons (not polygamists), or from Catholic priests (not pedophiles), or from Germans (not Nazis), etc, etc.

Thank you

Lets move it along

Jim im sorry I called your friends Bums, I was feeling defensive torwards your insults and should not have said that about them

Please dont insult me and I will not speak to you in a harsh way

[Kathleen Collins]

Greg

Maybe this will help you

I lost income because of Bums

Do you know how many customers walked away and did not order when a bum came in asking for money

Do you know how many customers walked out because I had to either drag one outside myslef or scream in their face to get lost

You know what the Seattle Police told me Greg? "You dont have to call us, just remove them from your property, if they take a swing at you then call us"

They didnt care, they didnt want me to call, in fact an officer told me to drag them outside real rough and they wont come back

I am not making that up

I lost money every day

I lost money every day

I LOST MONEY EVERY DAY

Now do you see why I have a strong opinion Greg

If you say yes I see why you have a strong opinion I promise I will never bring up the subject of Bums again

You have my word

You have a right to your opinion. Why does everyone have to believe the same thing? Why does everyone have to agree all the time?

What's Judyth up to?

Kathy C

[Greg Burnham]

Now do you see why I have a strong opinion Greg

If you say yes I see why you have a strong opinion I promise I will never bring up the subject of Bums again

You have my word

Yes, I see why you have a strong opinion [about bums].

However, Jim's friends are NOT "bums" -- Jim never identified them as "bums" -- So, let's continue this thread about Judyth and her credibility and admit ALL evidence--even that which comes from formerly homeless persons (not bums), or from Mormons (not polygamists), or from Catholic priests (not pedophiles), or from Germans (not Nazis), etc, etc.

Thank you

Lets move it along

Jim im sorry I called your friends Bums, I was feeling defensive torwards your insults and should not have said that about them

Please dont insult me and I will not speak to you in a harsh way

That sounds fair enough, Dean.

[Greg Burnham]

MonK:

Your point is well taken but I think these criticisms of Dean are exaggerated.

I did not and have not criticized Dean. I called a spade a spade.

Any of us, rightly or wrongly and probably wrongly, would be more skeptical of the testimony of a homeless person.

[my emphasis]

Doug -- "probably" ? You know better than that. It is not a "probably" situation--! It is absolutely wrong. If you are appealing to an argument of "human frailty or the human condition" that is all fine and good as a mitigating circumstance by which to justify Dean's perspective--but it fails to justify the lack of logic in the argument.

[Doug Weldon]

MonK:

Your point is well taken but I think these criticisms of Dean are exaggerated.

I did not and have not criticized Dean. I called a spade a spade.

Any of us, rightly or wrongly and probably wrongly, would be more skeptical of the testimony of a homeless person.

[my emphasis]

Doug -- "probably" ? You know better than that. It is not a "probably" situation--! It is absolutely wrong. If you are appealing to an argument of "human frailty or the human condition" that is all fine and good as a mitigating circumstance by which to justify Dean's perspective--but it fails to justify the lack of logic in the argument.

Monk:

Fair enough. Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on.

Best,

Doug Weldon

[Cliff Varnell]

Monk:

Fair enough. Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Doug, correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Jim Fetzer indicated his desire

to not continue on this thread?

I don't see what is accomplished by beating up on Jim and Judyth any further.

Wouldn't it be better to allow the man to withdraw as gracefully as possible?

I think it a service to all to let this thread be hijacked.

[Greg Burnham]

Monk:

Fair enough. Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

Since you insist on using examples from the justice system to make your point, I will too. The fact that prejudices are part of the human experience is the reason that jury selection is an art form. As you know, if a potential juror were to reveal such prejudice, as understandable as it might be under his or her unique circumstances, such a potential juror will be dismissed or released from duty. They will be deemed unfit for jury service due to that prejudice. Are you inadvertantly making a judgment call as to the fitness of Dean as a "dispassionate" juror?

I'd like to move on as well.

[Doug Weldon]

Monk:

Fair enough. Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Doug, correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Jim Fetzer indicated his desire

to not continue on this thread?

I don't see what is accomplished by beating up on Jim and Judyth any further.

Wouldn't it be better to allow the man to withdraw as gracefully as possible?

I think it a service to all to let this thread be hijacked.

Cliff:

I was not aware of that. Jim posted three times yesterday and did not mention anything. The last thing I knew was that Jim stated that Judyth was going to answer the questions I and others raised.

Best,

Doug Weldon

[Doug Weldon]

Monk:

Fair enough. Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

Since you insist on using examples from the justice system to make your point, I will too. The fact that prejudices are part of the human experience is the reason that jury selection is an art form. As you know, if a potential juror were to reveal such prejudice, as understandable as it might be under his or her unique circumstances, such a potential juror will be dismissed or released from duty. They will be deemed unfit for jury service due to that prejudice. Are you inadvertantly making a judgment call as to the fitness of Dean as a "dispassionate" juror?

I'd like to move on as well.

Monk:

It is not that simplistic. There are challenges for cause, which are not so broad, and preemptory challenges. What do you call a person with an I.Q. of 60, barely got into law school, finished at the bottom of their class, failed the bar exam 4 times before barely passing it? Answer: Your Honor.

Doug Weldon