×
all 11 comments

[–]BenjaminNormanPierce 1 point2 points  (11 children)

I will repeat the sense of an earlier post: I met Jack in person, though when he was alive he was, in hindsight, compartmentalizing his life in such a way that I would only have ever met one facet of him. He was, as best as I recall, going by Magnus, not Jack, and was plainly said that there were parts of his life that were kept at the level of suggestion only when it came to practical expression of his politics because he may or may not have violated the law (and you know as much as I do about what that may have meant).

All that said, where did I meet him? At the now-long-defunct Socrates Cafe group that met (at that time) in the now-online Avol's Books in downtown Madison. He did not have the life experience or, in cases, the formal education of the usual members there, many into retirement age, but even in his late teens or early twenties we able to participate in a n articulate and informed manner in discussions that had to do with more serious topics than say, the Green Bay Packers or whatever people were watching on TV these days. His opinions were developed and often informed beyond having glanced a headline or two. Of the few younger people that would become regulars or semi-regulars, he stands out as, out of all of them, the one that most philosophically matured and best-read and informed--enough to make anyone who met him to wonder, in hindsight, what he might have achieved if he had not been mentally ill.

It is a hazardous thing to try to separate anyone who tries to educate and express themselves wholly from their mental illness--so often what is most unique and most brilliant shares the same roots with everything that might challenge it's full realization--but I will say this: Jack would have remained of interest even if the only difference would have been if he hadn't been mentally ill or even if it would have been something he could have come to better terms with.

I will leave it at that.

[–]Technical_Hunt_1599 1 point2 points  (2 children)

"He did not have the life experience or, in cases, the formal education of the usual members there, many into retirement age, but even in his late teens or early twenties we able to participate in a n articulate and informed manner in discussions" This also does not equate to high intelligence, Jack actually had a lot more access to knowledge than older members considering he was young in the digital age, where accessing information was as simple as a google search. I am simply asking that we don't conflict accumulated knowledge, a love for puzzles (most of which seems like he couldn't even solve), and articulate grammar for something as ridiculous as a genius level IQ.

[–]UseAccomplished6592 0 points1 point  (1 child)

ngl gotta agree but people might misinterpret ur words

[–]Technical_Hunt_1599 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get that, I'll probably get downvoted or ratioed, but what I'm saying is reasonable. I am not insulting his intelligence, just putting it out there he isn't the "unhinged brilliance" this subreddit is making him out to be.

[–]Technical_Hunt_1599 0 points1 point  (7 children)

I appreciate your comment, but it seems like we're talking about two different things. I do not think Jack was dumb or even average, but I don't agree with the posts on this subreddit claiming he was a genius level intellect. He had absolutely no showings of doing anything close to what is the standard for an IQ of 140+, and I think it's ridiculous for some of these people to imply that an articulate monologue can equate to genius.

I understand that people want to dramatize the story and play him up as "unhinged brilliance", but the truth of the matter is enjoying puzzles and having articulate grammar just doesn't equate to that. From your anecdote, it sounds like he was a well-educated individual but nowhere near the standard that individuals in this subreddit hold him to

[–]BenjaminNormanPierce 0 points1 point  (6 children)

My point is that he was well self-educated, and beyond what I normally encounter in this college town. At any time, I have many room-mates in about their twenties and many of my social and professional contacts are in that age range. I grew up in an academic house-hold. I think I am ongoingly well-acquainted with what most young adults have made of themselves, pre-internet and post. It was fair clear to me that Jack was not merely on the internet but was still reading physical books, and far more to the point, was processing and making better use of those than most. Your argument makes it sound like he was the only smart kid I had ever met in my life--but, one way or another, I have been in walking distance of some university or another all my life. I know what smart kids are like.

Whether or not I would use the loaded and oft-arbitrary term "genius" I am saying that Jack had more going on than most. We can argue whether, ultimately, his most common vehicles of expression were the most likely to improve the world--we can argue if we would have expected him to be onto more had he lived. I am saying that, over time, what Jack left behind rewards some study, especially upon returning to it--and I am saying that anyone who had alive acquaintance with him would come away knowing that there was real potential there, some of it already realized.

[–]Technical_Hunt_1599 0 points1 point  (4 children)

You're posting these paragraphs in response to something that is completely unrelated to what you're talking about. My argument wasn't that he was dumb, even average, but the pedestal these people are putting him on has no actual backing. Your anecdote doesn't contribute much besides the fact he was "well educated" (can be correlated with intelligence, but doesn't mean someone is inherently exceptionally intelligent for their education levels lol)

"It was fair clear to me that Jack was not merely on the internet but was still reading physical books, and far more to the point, was processing and making better use of those than most." Still doesn't debunk my actual point, its become a pattern of you saying nothing related to my original claim.

The rest of this paragraph is mostly you just saying the same thing but in different formats and I don't feel like it contributes anything. The argument that "You grew up in an educated household; therefore, you know what actual smarts look like" is a fallacy loaded statement, and again, where are the actual showings of brilliance?

"Whether or not I would use the loaded and oft-arbitrary term "genius" I am saying that Jack had more going on than most" Great, so you agree with me that he was probably bright but wasn't "unhinged brilliance". What is the purpose of this paragraph where you're just missing my point and ultimately contributing nothing then?

"and I am saying that anyone who had alive acquaintance with him would come away knowing that there was real potential there, some of it already realized." Seems like the guy died in an apartment with schizophrenic ramblings all over his walls. I'll ask again, show me the money. Where are the showings of high-level intelligence, besides a few articulate monologues (where he mostly spewed ideas that have been echoed for hundreds of years) and your anecdote?

[–]BenjaminNormanPierce 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I can say this to a certainty: when you are dead, you will have left not even the legacy that Jack left.

There's the money.

[–]Technical_Hunt_1599 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Let's get one thing straight; Jack does not have a legacy, he has been turned into a creepypasta and this is because nothing he did in life was actually notable. There were never any breakthroughs, genius, or big ideas. His "work" consists of echoed ideas and nothingburgers.

I'm seventeen years old and have created even bigger urban legends than the one of "PoorlyPlannedComics", and I am set to do way bigger things than Jack himself. And I am especially going to do bigger things than you, who is a dishwasher at like 56.

The thing about you is you've lived such a sad life leaving behind no legacy to the point where you're compensating for it with high verbal skills (which I think I surpass you in) You're not just hurt that I insulted your friend, you're hurt that someone is actually more articulate than you, and surpassing you in the one thing you pride yourself in.

Articulation means nothing if it isn't accompanied by reasoning and logical thinking, both of which you obviously lack considering you stormed into my comments and strawmanned my point entirely.

[–]BenjaminNormanPierce 0 points1 point  (1 child)

63, actually content, and don't boast of what I have done other than wash dishes. The only thing you have got going for you is enough time to get over yourself. Minus that, my prediction stands.

[–]Technical_Hunt_1599 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I'll be fine as an educator at the university of Ohio State, you on the other hand need to go wash some dishes. You're on the clock.