Twelve days left until #PuzzlerPride2025 drops!

#PuzzlerPride #LoopPuzzles #Puzzles #LogicPuzzles

🎬 🔥 Live content alert! @hatnix is streaming on Owncast: https://live.hatnix.net/

#paradoxes #doorsofperdition #puzzlemaster #logicpuzzles #owncast #livestream #stream #selfhosted

I have another free logic puzzle from Dell Penny Press for you in a PDF. I printed it and solved it with a pencil; it's nice to get away from the screens for a while.

I'd categorize this one as harder than it looks at first, but not as impossible as it seems at second. 😉

https://www.pennydellpuzzles.com/free-puzzles/penny-daily-variety/20250207_puz_pvar.pdf

#ScottPuzzles #LogicPuzzle #LogicPuzzles #Puzzles

Through a @puzzles retoot, I discovered fun new #puzzle today. Called Sudokuish, a #Sudoku variant that I've never seen before — a fun change of pace! Website is in Danish, but if you have solved Sudoku variants, you'll figure it out without translation. There's 3 levels of difficulty. Start with Let (easy) and work your way to Svær (hard).

Have fun!

Sudokuish #043/25
⭐️⭐️⭐️ Svær
Spil med på https://www.immer.co/spil/sudokuish

#LogicPuzzle #LogicPuzzles #Puzzles #Sudokuish #Immerspiele

Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2)

Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014

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

Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Journal: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Journal Founding: August 2, 2012

Frequency: Three (3) Times Per Year

Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed

Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access

Fees: None (Free)

Volume Numbering: 13

Issue Numbering: 1

Section: A

Theme Type: Idea

Theme Premise: “Outliers and Outsiders”

Theme Part: 32

Formal Sub-Theme: Post-Conatus News Meander

Individual Publication Date: December 8, 2024

Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2025

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Word Count: 2,719

Image Credits: Photo by Nguyen Dang Hoang Nhu on Unsplash.

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885

Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*

Abstract

Tianxi Yu, once intrigued by logic puzzles, entered the high-IQ community through chance, adopting it as a hobby. Over time, Yu’s disillusionment with superficial validation in high-IQ societies led to selling test answers, exposing systemic flaws. Yu criticized the lack of integrity in high-IQ leaders, highlighting vanity and false pretenses. Advocating for tests as intellectual hobbies, Yu proposed transparency, dynamic testing, and diminished focus on scores. While acknowledging ethical tensions, Yu emphasized the need for reform over trust restoration, urging communities to prioritize intellectual challenges and real achievements. Ultimately, Yu seeks systemic change and challenges the culture of validation-driven intelligence.

Keywords: high-IQ societies, intellectual validation, logic puzzles, meaningful achievements, system flaws, test answer leaks, test security.

Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2)

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How did participation in logic puzzles and reasoning competitions influence the development of the eventual conclusion of high-range tests best as a hobby?

Tianxi Yu: From a young age, I was interested in solving puzzles. My encounter with HRTs was purely accidental. However, as I learned more about HRTs, I discovered they represented a purer form of logic, which led me to adopt them as a hobby.

Jacobsen: What motivated the extension into participation into high-IQ societies? What are some of the other reasons or decisions to sell IQ test answers?

Yu: Initially, I was motivated by my interest in HRTs and the belief that members of high-IQ societies would be intelligent and interesting people. After all, members of high-IQ societies frequently appeared on intellectual competition TV shows. My decision to sell answers ultimately stemmed from my growing dislike of this community.

Jacobsen: I have been told before that the selling of high-range test answers in Asian circles spans back as far as 2012. Therefore, at a minimum, this is potentially a significant issue and a long-term one. What would you estimate the scale selling and leaking of high-range test question answers in Asia and beyond? With the internet, it seems natural: This is global, not simply Chinese circles or even Asian circles. What does this mean for the Latin, European, and North American high-I.Q. circles, as this has been happening for so many years and so pervasively?

Yu: I find it difficult to estimate the scale, as I was just an elementary school student in 2012. However, given how much time has passed, I believe most regions have likely received test answers. I myself have received such answers, including SLSE I II 48 and LS24 36. These leaked answers were of high quality, capable of achieving scores around 170.

As a side note, when I was verifying these answers, for example with SLSE II, I found that the leaked answer ‘a’ differed from answer ‘b’ that I derived through my own logical reasoning. When I applied answer ‘a’ to the question, I discovered logic chain A, but found that both logic chains A and B were similarly rigorous, making it difficult to determine which answer was superior. This wasn’t an isolated case – there were multiple such questions, suggesting that SLSE I II tests weren’t particularly rigorous. From my perspective, the leaking of HRT answers was an inevitable outcome of systematic flaws in the testing mechanism.

Jacobsen: What were the primary factors that led you to oppose certain high-IQ associations outside of the stipulated emotions felt, i.e. “dislike”? 

Yu: Yes, it was because of “dislike.” I tend to be conservative in my approach – if I’m 80% certain of something, I’ll only claim 30% certainty, which is why people around me consider me reliable. As I learned more about the high-IQ community, I discovered they were like buckets filled only to 10% but presenting themselves as 100% full, while hinting at their modesty when in reality they claimed to be pure gold.

Take China’s largest high-IQ society – the Shenghan Club – for example. Its three leaders attended the worst universities, with some not even making it to university. I’ve spoken with them all; they try to sound profound but lack substance, only interested in collecting membership fees.

Then there’s the case of Liu Dan, a high-IQ society member who started with a score of 120 and later applied to the Olympic Association. She gained higher IQ scores through making love with high-scoring members of the high-IQ community (https://www.zhihu.com/question/396415262/answer/1241102475). For clarity, the key names in the article are: CWJ – Wenjin Chen (Shenghan Association founder), SWJ – Wenchin Sui (former highest IQ in China), LJL – Junlong Li (Silent House Association founder).

Now you can understand how ridiculous the Chinese high-IQ community is. They’re ignorant without realizing it, yet act superior and treat others as fools. This phenomenon isn’t limited to Chinese communities – people like Younghoon Kim appear equally absurd to me. I’m not completely dismissing high-IQ societies; there are some good people like Mahir Wu. However, when the highest leaders of this community don’t live up to their positions, there’s a need for change.

Jacobsen: How did you balance profiting from their frameworks while actively challenging their practices? The ethics seems more clear, as bad in exploitation of a weak spot in the high-range testing environment, while redeeming to some degree to beginning, potentially, a serious conversation about developing more cheat-resistant tests and about the culture desired to be developed amongst the smart; when compared to the effects long-term and short-term on the high-range testing environment, that is, the given uncertainty of the extent of the challenge to the entire environment–so, a distinction and line drawn between ethical and technical-cultural issues. 

Yu: There was no need for balance, as my goal was to completely overturn the high-IQ community with overwhelming force. This business couldn’t last forever – the high-IQ community only entered public consciousness due to the explosive popularity of shows like “The Super Brain” and similar intellectual competition programs.

But such popularity is inherently unsustainable. When the hype dies down, everything returns to obscurity. What I was doing wasn’t just about profit – it was about exposing the fundamental flaws in the system. By selling answers and demonstrating how easily the system could be manipulated, I was forcing a confrontation with its inherent problems.

The community’s focus on scores and certifications rather than genuine intellectual achievement created its own vulnerability. I saw my actions as a form of creative destruction – by exploiting and exposing these weaknesses, I was demonstrating why the entire system needed to be reformed. 

In a way, the ethical implications were secondary to the larger goal of systemic change. When a system is fundamentally flawed, sometimes it needs to be broken down before it can be rebuilt properly. While selling answers was technically unethical, the existing system was already ethically compromised by its emphasis on superficial measures of intelligence rather than genuine intellectual development.

Jacobsen: I am aware others did the same for free. So, finances aren’t the main motivation necessarily. These can be swept under the rug without being dealt with at times. Maybe, your expressions were a long-time coming while you become the lightning rod for a wider phenomenon. Why was finance part of the equation for you? What do you think the motivation might be for others who take no charges for any of the leaks of high-range test answers?

Yu: Money was a factor for me because I lacked it at the time. Now that I’m financially comfortable, I wouldn’t consider doing this kind of business anymore. However, I’m still reluctant to release my answers for free, since many of my solutions achieved perfect scores, while other leaked answers typically only reached around 170 points.

As for others who leak answers for free, their motivations could be varied – some might want to show off their abilities, others might want to attack specific test authors, and some might simply want to disrupt the system. Since I was just an elementary school student when much of this started, I don’t know the specific details, but from what I understand, these high-scoring answers initially began circulating in Europe and America.

Jacobsen: How do you perceive the role of vanity and validation-seeking within high-IQ communities? What if others direct accusations against your behaviour and attitudes, i.e., claiming arrogance and lack of remorse & accountability?

Yu: The role of vanity and validation-seeking in high-IQ communities is precisely what I despised most. Most members are people with average intelligence who seek validation through test scores rather than real achievements. They often have limited education and actual IQs not exceeding 130, yet they constantly boast and profit from membership fees. They seek validation through numbers because they’re not doing well in real life.

As for accusations of arrogance and lack of remorse – honestly, I don’t care what others think anymore. I’ve moved beyond caring about IQ scores or others’ opinions of me.  A truly intelligent person proves themselves through actual achievements, not by defending their reputation in high-IQ societies.

I understand people might call my behavior arrogant, but I’ve always been direct about what I observe. When I see people with mediocre abilities presenting themselves as intellectual giants, I call it out. When I see systemic problems, I expose them. If being honest about these issues makes me appear arrogant, so be it. I’d rather be considered arrogant while speaking the truth than be praised for maintaining comfortable lies.

Regarding accountability – I’ve been completely transparent about my actions. I’ve used my real name, Tianxi Yu, since 2020, and I’ve openly discussed everything I did. Unlike many in these communities who hide behind false credentials, I’ve taken responsibility for my actions and their consequences

Jacobsen: What lessons did you learn from managing a business that profited from selling test answers?

Yu: From this business experience, I learned that truly intelligent people exist, but most of them maintain a low profile and don’t seek attention. For example, there’s someone in the high-IQ community with an IQ over 180 who, despite limited formal education, earned over 10 million in 2023. The genuinely smart people I regularly interacted with in this community weren’t the ones with prominent reputations – they were mostly unknown figures working quietly in the background. Most importantly, I learned that those who can accept themselves and acknowledge their imperfections are the ones who can go further and achieve more.

Jacobsen: How did these experiences influence your current values?

Yu: These experiences didn’t have much influence on my values, as my core principles haven’t changed. If anything, my experience investing in cryptocurrency had a greater impact on my value system.

Jacobsen: How did these experiences make you want to move to a more standard path in life?

Yu: My move to a more standard path wasn’t really about these experiences with the high-IQ communities – it was more about recognizing what truly matters in life. After seeing both the superficiality of the high-IQ world, I realized that real fulfillment comes from meaningful work and genuine achievements.

Jacobsen: Given your background and, essentially, expertise in a weird enterprise grounded in the vanity of others, what are your thoughts on the effectiveness and security of high-range tests, particularly in the context of widespread answer leakage? Are proctored standardized tests like the WAIS subject to similar or different weaknesses to test answer leaks?

Yu: HRTs have no real security. I remember Mahir Wu once publicly stated that by combining two test papers that scored 160 on N-World, one could create an answer set scoring over 180. For tests of lower difficulty, high scores can be achieved through collaboration.

WAIS test questions have also been leaked, and their difficulty level is quite low – they can only measure lower IQ ranges. Moreover, WAIS was originally invented to detect intellectual disability, not genius.

Jacobsen: How do you respond to concerns raised about undermining trust in high-IQ societies, high-range tests, and high-range test scores?

Yu: Don’t trust anyone.

Jacobsen: What steps do you believe high-IQ societies should take to make tests more cheat-resistant, especially for extreme high-range IQ tests?

Yu: Instead of being conservative with test security, I think we should open up the system. Let people freely discuss test answers, but invalidate all previous test questions. If someone wants to join a high-IQ club, they should take a new, timed test specifically created for them, with scoring scales estimated by experienced professionals.

Jacobsen: How do you reflect on your actions reshaping the landscape of high-IQ societies in China?

Yu: The obnoxious fellows disappeared, and Shenghan’s ability to amass wealth plummeted. But these are not enough; the ways of the high IQ community are backward and need to be revolutionized from the ground up.

Jacobsen: Do you believe these changes have broader implications for global high-IQ communities, even the potential to be adapted to other national and regional contexts–as your proposed solution is simply to make them hobbies more than anything?

Yu: My influence on global high-IQ communities has been limited because I haven’t spent energy boasting about myself globally. However, demystifying something that appears impressive is often a way to reduce fanaticism. This applies not just to high IQ scores, but also to academic credentials, money, power, and similar status symbols.

Jacobsen: What insights do you have into the ethical tensions between acknowledging flaws in high-IQ societies and the potential erosion of trust that comes with such transparency?

Yu: The trust issues in high-IQ societies have long existed. My choice to expose these problems isn’t creating a new crisis of trust, but rather revealing an already corrupted system. While this transparency might cause short-term disruption, it’s necessary in the long run.

Let me use a specific example: as I mentioned before, some so-called high-IQ society leaders have limited education yet act as if they possess supreme wisdom when collecting membership fees. This false authority has already eroded the foundation of trust within these societies.

I believe the real ethical tension isn’t about whether to reveal the truth, but about how to rebuild a healthier system. When I publicly sold answers, I was, in a way, demonstrating the system’s flaws through extreme means. This may damage some people’s trust in high-IQ tests, but that trust was built on a false foundation to begin with.

That’s why I suggest treating high-IQ testing as merely a hobby. When we stop placing excessive importance on these tests, we can more clearly see true wisdom and ability.

Jacobsen: How do you reconcile your past actions with your current stance on the value of IQ scores?

Yu: There’s no need to reconcile, because it’s not my business.

Jacobsen: Given the long history of leaked answers dating back to 2012 or earlier, what systemic changes do you think are necessary to address this issue on an international scale?

Yu: We can refer to the puzzle solving community.

Jacobsen: How might dynamic question pools and randomized testing reduce answer leakage, as in things like the DynamIQ Test of Marco and Roberto or the Adaptive IQ Test of some members of the Mega Society?

Yu: This is difficult to effectively prevent. After GFIS realized the problems I was causing, they switched to in-person testing with randomized questions and trusted proctors. Subsequently, I trained some people to achieve high scores, infiltrate GFIS internally, and gain the power to create test questions. Without government regulation, there’s no perfect solution.

From my perspective, we could use market economy methods – letting people openly discuss and freely explore these tests. The positive impacts of such openness would outweigh the negative ones.

This highlights the fundamental challenges in securing any testing system, even with dynamic approaches. When there’s sufficient motivation and capability, people can find ways to manipulate even well-designed systems. Sometimes, embracing transparency might be more effective than attempting to maintain strict security measures.

Jacobsen: What advice would you offer to high-IQ societies, test developers, and participants, to restore credibility and ensure the integrity of their communities and assessments?

Yu: The key issue isn’t really about restoring credibility or ensuring integrity – it’s about fundamentally rethinking what these communities and tests are trying to achieve. From my experience, both running an answer-selling operation and achieving legitimate high scores, I see several clear points:

For societies and test developers:

Accept that no test system will be completely secure, especially without government oversight

Instead of trying to create unbreakable tests, focus on making tests that are genuinely interesting intellectual challenges

Move away from treating scores as absolute measures of intelligence

Consider implementing time-limited testing sessions with new questions for each participant

Be transparent about limitations rather than pretending they don’t exist

For participants:

Treat these tests as intellectual hobbies rather than validation of worth

Focus on developing real-world capabilities and achievements

Understand that truly intelligent people don’t need to prove their intelligence through test scores

The hard truth is that many high-IQ societies are fundamentally flawed because they’re built on vanity and validation-seeking. Until this culture changes, no technical solution will fix the credibility problem. 

Remember that even the most secure test systems can be compromised if people are determined enough. The solution isn’t to build higher walls, but to create a community that values hobby growth over numbers.

Footnotes

None

Citations

American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2). December 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2

American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, December 8). ‘Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2)’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. ‘Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2)’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2.

Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (December 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2)’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2.

Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2)’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2) [Internet]. 2024 Dec; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2.

License & Copyright

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.

#highIQSocieties #intellectualValidation #logicPuzzles #meaningfulAchievements #systemFlaws #testAnswerLeaks #testSecurity

Oh, crap. It's already May 31st and I still need to make some kind of teaser graphic for this year's #PuzzlerPride puzzle showcase.

#PuzzlerPride2024 #Puzzles #LogicPuzzles #WordPuzzles #PrideMonth2024 #PrideMonth #LGBTQPlus

My last (for now) book came out yesterday. It's not substantially different from the others in the series, but it's large print and avoids more recent pop culture topics and youth slang. (It also doesn't skateboard on the sidewalk in front of your house and isn't on your lawn.)

https://thegriddle.net/books/mensa-brain-benders-for-seniors

#PuzzleBook #Puzzles #PuzzleAuthor #Mensa #LogicPuzzles