Dialogues of Nodin and William - Intelligence Versus IQ #4
(PD) Rembrandt - The Archangel Leaving the Family of Tobias
Copyright ©2007-2019 - updated May 11, 2019
Nodin: Tell me William, what is the people's view on intelligence? Do the people yet have a standard that they live by, or is there a man within their midst that is valued as the most wise? If we might know who is deemed the most high among the people, we can then observe his characteristics and learn of what the people value most in a man.
William: It is said that a man by the name of William James Sidis was the smartest man on earth. People have told me of the things he did as a child, such as learning to read before two years old, and entering college at the age of eleven, so it must be true.
Nodin: Please correct me if I am misinterpreting your words William, but are you telling me that you believe this Sidis fellow was the smartest man on earth, because someone told you so?
William: I have also been told that his IQ was between 250 to 300, and so the claim must be true.
Nodin: And again, you believe all of this because someone told you the information?
William: Well yes, it must be true, for after all, if so many other people believe it to be true, then surely it is true. If the majority of people believe a thing is true, then the belief is based on a shared observation, and many people's opinions are of more weight than a single person's opinion.
Nodin: Come now William, do not be rash in your beliefs; think it through. Why do the people believe that Sidis was smart?
William: A book was written about prodigies, and the book clearly stated that Sidis was the smartest person to have ever lived. The book also stated that Sidis had an IQ of 250 to 300.
Nodin: Oh, and so then, the belief that is held by many people, that Sidis was the smartest man on earth, is based on the words of a book?
William: Yes. The author researched the history of several prodigies, and the author concluded Sidis was the smartest.
Nodin: Have you read the book yourself?
William: No, I have not, but I have been told that other people have read it, and everyone who has read it has said that Sidis had the 250 to 300 IQ, which makes him the smartest man on earth.
Nodin: But you did no research yourself to verify the book's claim?
William: No, there is no need to, for other people have already done the research, including the author who is a popular writer.
Nodin: So then confirm to me, that the whole of your opinion about this Sidis fellow is based solely on hearsay that other people have told you?
William: It is not hearsay Nodin, it is fact. I have been told the same thing from people in high IQ societies, that William Sidis was the smartest man on earth, and if people with proven high intelligence believe Sidis was smart, then surely it must be so.
Nodin: You and I appear to be faced with a rather uncomfortable difficulty. You are basing your logic on information that other people have told you to be true, but you yourself have not analyzed any of the facts, nor have you performed any firsthand observation to verify what is true and what is false. How do you or I know that the individuals in the high IQ societies did their own research, or if they too might have accepted popular opinion to be true? By what logic do you expect me to believe any of what you are telling me?
William: As I said before, experts in high intelligence have said that Sidis was the smartest man on earth, almost everyone that I know believes the same thing, and Sidis' IQ of 250 to 300 proves the opinion to be correct.
Nodin: You, William, as well as the general public, have been terribly misled into a slumber of mind. Please tell me with detail; what is this thing we call intelligence?
William: It is simple; as the dictionaries state, it is the ability to acquire knowledge, reason, and apply knowledge.
Nodin: So then, a computer is the smartest being on earth because even a toy computer can acquire, store, and apply more knowledge than any human. Do computers have intelligence then?
William: No, of course not, for a computer cannot reason of itself, it must be programmed.
Nodin: Is not the programming itself the computer's ability to reason?
William: I see what you are saying, but no, computers do not reason, they instead only follow set instructions of how to react to data.
Nodin: Then please answer me this; if a man might claim that one plus one equals eleven, is he then deemed by the public to be intelligent?
William: Of course not Nodin, for the man's skill in arithmetic is defective, and therefore he is deemed to be of a low intelligence.
Nodin: Ah, but William, you had told me that the only defining standard of intelligence was to acquire knowledge, reason, and apply knowledge. Does not the man who sums an eleven from one plus one also acquire knowledge, apply reason, and apply the knowledge to arrive at the wrong answer? We must therefore, according to the definition you gave, conclude that intelligence exists if it can acquire knowledge, reason the knowledge, and apply the knowledge, regardless if the reasoning is correct or incorrect. There must then be additional qualities within this thing named intelligence, and what might those qualities be?
William: Well, yes, you are correct, and as we all know, incorrect reasoning is not deemed to be of a high level of intelligence. Perhaps intelligence might exist, whether high or low if there exists knowledge and reasoning, but we would then weigh the difference between high and low according to the accuracy of the reasoning and knowledge.
Nodin: Excellent William, actually very good, you thought-out the question rather than reciting words memorized from a book. Is not your definition of intelligence now sizably different than it was a moment previously?
William: Yes Nodin, you are correct, my interpretation of intelligence is now better clarified in my mind, and I find a better view of this thing we call intelligence.
Nodin: So then, based upon your new interpretation of what differentiates between high intelligence and low intelligence, which I thrust upon you with happiness of your having logically rationalized the balances of high and low yourself, tell me this; do you still remember our discussions on positivity and negativity?
William: Oh, yes, most definitely, for the thoughts remain on my mind almost constantly now, and I do try to make my decisions based upon that primary logic that negativity harms all things including one's self, and that positivity is the only logical choice for all behaviors and actions.
Nodin: Very good. And so answer me this; have you ever met an individual who was a member of a high IQ society that behaved with rudeness or another form of negativity?
William: Yes, I have met many in fact, and it is not common to meet members who behave differently. There are positive individuals who are members of high IQ societies, but similar to the percentages of positive individuals in the general public, their numbers are relatively low as compared to the negative individuals.
Nodin: And are you with the opinion that negative behavior is an improper behavior?
William: Yes, for negativity causes harm and destruction, and such a behavior is not logical.
Nodin: Does not a person reason their own behavior?
William: Yes, for all behaviors are an individual's own personal choice.
Nodin: So then, you are telling me that there are some members in high IQ societies that do not reason properly because they chose negative behaviors instead of positive?
William: That is correct.
Nodin: Then please clarify this to me, that you are telling me that it is illogical to behave negatively, that the behavior is due to inferior reasoning, that incorrect reasoning is deemed of the lower grade of intelligence, and yet you are saying that people with high IQs are smart because they have the high IQ even though some of the individuals cannot reason correctly?
William: I am now confused, for the concepts are conflicting with the other. I did say that Sidis was the smartest man on earth because his IQ was high, and I also said that some individuals with high IQ reason irrationally, and the two thoughts are not settling well in my soul.
Nodin: I am pleased to hear that your soul is perplexed, for indeed almost everything that you have told me has contradicted all other statements. Some people believe the Sidis fellow to have been the smartest man on earth because he had a high IQ, and yet as you reasoned within yourself, some high IQ individuals are known to not think rationally, and that they in fact possess a low intelligence. Does this not conclude that IQ and intelligence are not the same things?
William: You are correct, and I am feeling foolish for having believed such a terribly incorrect belief that was so simply proven incorrect through the use of a logic weighing only a single item like negativity versus positivity.
Nodin: That is the difference between the average mind and the superior mind William; the average mind accepts public opinion, the average mind easily believes contradictions of logic, the average mind does not recognize the absurdities of contradicting information, the average mind memorizes knowledge instead of figuring-out the information rationally, and the possession of a high IQ does not in itself infer anything above an average intelligence. The superior mind first discovers facts, the rules of Nature, and the superior mind holds the facts as laws when reasoning future topics. There is nothing intellectually superior in the man who sums eleven from one plus one, and there is nothing intellectually superior in the man with a high IQ who behaves with negativity.
William: But surely there is an advantage to IQ scores. Are the individuals with high IQs not smarter than the average individual?
Nodin: We return again to the difference between being smart and being not smart. The man with the high IQ who sums eleven from one plus one, is he smarter than the man with a low IQ that also sums eleven from one plus one?
William: No, the high IQ man would not be smarter, for both men made a similar mistake.
Nodin: And is there a superiority of one mind over the other if the high IQ man behaves with negativity, as does the low IQ man? If both men choose the same choice, then is there a difference in the definition of intelligence that states reasoning is required?
William: It appears to me now that there is no real difference, for if two men make a similar error, then both men are of a similar intelligence. But what then is the difference between high and low IQs?
Nodin: Typically, the high IQ score indicates that the man can think incorrect thoughts faster and in a higher quantity. If the man with the high IQ can acquire tens of millions of quantities more of knowledge than the low IQ man, and the high IQ man can apply the knowledge thousands of times faster than the low IQ man, then IQ generally only measures the quantity and speed of one's ability to process information, but IQ does not measure the quality of the information nor the quality of the reasoning. Please allow me to better explain my last statement so that you will not misunderstand: it is one thing to be able to manipulate symbols quickly and with accuracy relative to the specific symbolic language, whether the symbolism be mathematics or a spoken language, but it is a different thing entirely to be accurate in a thing that is itself inaccurate. All languages, including mathematics, are inaccurate when reasoned against Reality.
William: But how can that be possible? Is not the ability to reason math and geometry a sign of superior intelligence? It requires acute abstract reasoning abilities to correctly sum higher mathematics.
Nodin: Let us put this into perspective, as we did in a previous discussion. Which came first, negativity or the languages of mathematics, geometry, and the spoken word?
William: Negativity of course.
Nodin: And is negativity an incorrect behavior?
William: Yes, as we continue to agree, negativity is a destructive behavior at all times and for all people.
Nodin: So then, can it be possible for us to now say that it is acceptable to be negative if a person can accurately recite a language? Does negativity become a creative behavior upon the moment that a person can sum one and one correctly?
William: No, the behavior of negativity would remain an irrational choice.
Nodin: It is a lesson that must be learned William, that a person must carefully choose the proper laws that came first, and the person then must weigh all future things upon the scale of firsts. We first choose what is real, what is observable, what has been personally verified through firsthand experience to be a Natural law, and only after we hold that law within us and judge all things relative to the Natural law, can we then discover the errors of other things like the symbolic languages. Symbolic languages might appear logical to most people, and the languages are indeed logical within their own framework of logic, but the logic of languages are not logical relative to the Natural laws. If a thing disagrees with Nature, then the thing is wrong.
William: Okay, I accept what you are saying, that we must have principles in life, and we must use those principles for all decisions and behaviors, but still I question the idea about IQs, for surely there is a much greater importance in IQ if almost everyone in the world seems to believe that a high IQ infers a superior intelligence.
Nodin: Ha! Let me present to you a different angle of what I have been pointing to. Let us entertain for a moment that we are in agreement that IQ is based upon speed and quantity, without the need for quality. I will now win perfect scores on all the hundreds of IQ tests with speed and quantity by saying the answer to every question is "nine". I am now the smartest man on earth!
William: Nodin, your humor is both funny and ridiculous, and I do recognize what you are saying, but as we all know, the actual questions in IQ tests are often quite difficult to answer correctly, and I view your humor as having exceeded a sensible analogy, for only specific answers can be correct for specific questions.
Nodin: Oh? I have exceeded sensibility? And yet I am confident that you would agree with me that the symbolism of language can never be correct itself.
William: True, all languages are limited in their ability to communicate, for each word is interpreted differently by the speaker and listener to imply what they themselves experienced in life personally, and never can a single word mean the same thing to two people. But still Nodin, still there is a commonly shared concept within languages that all people who are familiar with the language can grasp an idea of what the words imply, and it is within those concepts that people can accurately judge the questions within IQ tests.
Nodin: You are over ninety-nine percent correct William! Over ninety-nine percent of the people share a similar belief in the meanings of words, and the ninety-nine-plus percent of the people will give similar answers on many kinds of tests, whether the tests are for emotions, personality, or intelligence. Allow me to demonstrate to you a simple thing that illustrates what I am thinking of. There is an IQ test question that says you are to determine if an opaque jar is over half full or under half full of liquid, and you must make the determination without any type of measuring equipment and without removing any liquid from the jar. So tell me the answer; how can you determine if the jar is over or under half full?
William: I have seen that test, and I must confess that my answer today is derived from my having seen the answer, for I myself did not solve the riddle. The answer is that you lean the jar over until the liquid touches the lip, and if you can then see the bottom of the jar through the lip opening, then the jar is under half full.
Nodin: Ah, and you have proven to yourself that yours is of an average intelligence. Regardless of how many questions like the jar question you answer correctly, you will be wrong about all, and though your IQ may be scored high, still your intelligence will remain average and of not greater superiority than the man who scored a hundred points lower than yourself.
William: I disagree Nodin, for not only did I quote the correct answer, the test itself is graded upon that answer being the only correct answer. There can be no other logical conclusion, for if I chose the answer that the test designers chose and that the test graders will grade by, then I had to have chosen the correct solution.
Nodin: Think it out William, triangulate your logic on Nature and the principle of firsts to rationalize the question and answer. Your answer is fully incorrect, as also incorrect is the question invented by the test designer, and incorrectly scored by the test grader.
William: No, I can see no other solution, for I am positive that I am correct, and if seemingly everyone in the world except you agrees with me that the question and answer are correct, then I must disagree with your view that the answer is incorrect. Let us prove this by firsthand observation, by filling a jar less than half full and then tilting the jar to see if indeed the bottom can be seen when the liquid touches the lip.
Nodin: Excellent William, and to my pleasure I just happen to have a jar beside me that was made by an artist of glass. Look upon the jar and you will observe something rather unique that validates that your answer, as well as the IQ test's question, were wrong.
William: You have tricked me again Nodin. If I believed in demons, I would jest that surely you have more than one devil of mischievousness within you.
Nodin: Now you be polite about my delightful demons, for we all have many, but you are correct in that mine are happily of the mischievous spirit. But placing our jesting to the side, look upon the jar and see with your own eyes that the jar is not perfectly symmetrical. See how the jar has a wide body on one side and a narrow body on the other side. The jar is oddly shaped throughout, where even the bottom is bent off to one side and the lip is also bent and has numerous different heights. The IQ test's answer was wrong, for here we have a jar as in the question, and you and I can both see that it is not possible to determine whether liquid might be above or below half full if we tilt the jar.
William: I admit defeat Nodin, you have proven your point, and I am feeling quite foolish at the moment for having stood so firmly in my irrational belief that a jar must automatically be symmetrical in shape.
Nodin: But what we have touched on thus far with the jar is but a tiny sampling of the errors in the average intellect's manner of thinking. It is also quite impossible for there to exist perfect symmetry anywhere in three-dimensional Reality, and never can it be possible for the IQ test answer to be correct even if all jars were created from a single mold. Even if we were to pretend that perfect symmetry of a jar could exist, it would still be impossible to accurately determine if the jar was more or less half full if the volume of liquid was very close to being exactly half. It is not possible to visually determine if one additional molecule of liquid existed that would establish the jar's capacity has reached over or under half capacity. The average person's mind functions with vague generalities, where the mind leaps head-first into believing that an undefined word carries with it a clarified definition. The word "jar" does not in any measure whatsoever imply perfect symmetry, but to score well on the IQ test question, an individual must believe that the word "jar" carries with it the impossible definition of perfection in symmetry, size, and composition, along with numerous other absurdities such as there not being a clarification of the quantity of liquid, the viscosity of the liquid, the adhesive qualities of the liquid, the temperature of the liquid, the freezing point of the liquid, the boiling point of the liquid, nor any other variables that fully prevent the possibility of there being an accurate answer without there first being an accurate description. What if the jar were a giga-cubits in height, or a nano-cubit in height? Who could tilt the jar? The IQ test question relied on the general interpretation that all jars must be of a generally similar shape and of a generally similar size that the general public can adequately manipulate with the hands, and the IQ question also relied on the general interpretation that the volume of liquid would be of a general variance sufficient enough to visually determine the difference of over or under half full. If a hand-sized jar were over ninety percent full, or only ten percent full, would we not only need to look inside the jar to make the determination of whether it was over or under half full? The average intellect does not exceed the narrow envelope of generalities, and neither do IQ tests.
William: I now agree with you Nodin, but what about all the other questions in IQ tests? Surely they cannot all be as easily proven invalid as the jar question.
Nodin: Oh, but they can. The jar IQ test question's primary fault was that it did not allow a choice of answering accurately. As you now recognize, by answering the question with the answer that was supposed to be correct, you would answer falsely, and please tell me this; is honesty a Natural law?
William: Yes it is, and I continue growing ever more disappointed with myself for having believed the popular myth that IQ was synonymous to intelligence.
Nodin: All known IQ tests possess similar questions and answers as the jar riddle, and none of the tests are valid measurements of superior intelligence. Intelligence tests were first designed to differentiate the slow mind from the normal mind, and the tests were generally capable of measuring what they were designed to measure, but a test for slowness of mind cannot be expected to correctly measure quickness of mind. The IQ test's jar answer may appear mathematically valid to some people perhaps, but an individual's talent with mathematics does not necessitate that the individual can apply the talent to real life, as we have already determined about the negativity in some high IQ individuals. IQ tests are not a valid measurement of real-world intelligence.
William: But I must ask then, what is the nature of IQ tests? The tests appear difficult to some of us, and yet the tests are very easy to other individuals. What is it within the tests that separate the talents of one individual from another?
Nodin: IQ tests rely on a shared vocabulary, a shared concept of language, a shared narrowness of thoughts, and shared beliefs, but never on fact. It is the average mind that jumps to assume a similar thought sequence and belief as the average test designer's. Only the individual whose mind is similar to the test designer's can believe that an answer is correct that the designer believed was correct. The highest IQ signifies the highest averageness as weighed by the IQ test, where it could be said, sadly, that low IQ signifies the inability to reach the average percentile of averageness.
William: Then all the people with high IQs are just average people like most everyone else?
Nodin: Oh of course not; it is never possible to claim any one specific mental talent from an IQ score. It is still possible to score well on an IQ test simply by knowing how the mind of average people thinks, and then choosing answers to match what the ninety-nine-plus percent of other people would choose. For some people, it is not a quest for discovering the correct answer, but rather discerning what an average mind would choose.
William: I am now curious, if perhaps we might find a greater quantity of individuals with superior minds in the higher IQ scores, even if the IQ scores themselves mean little.
Nodin: You are standing upon thin ice with the question, William, for there has not yet been a thorough investigation into the behavior of all people of all IQ scores, and it is unwise to formulate a theory without first possessing a large quantity of background information that exceeds the simplicity of comparing IQ scores with behavior. For an example, what about the individuals with superior intellects who purposefully scored low on IQ tests so as to prevent punishment? We do not know how many individuals purposefully scored low IQs, and so we cannot base any conclusion about IQ without first knowing the hearts and minds of all individuals who have taken IQ tests, and as you well-know, such a thing as knowing the heart and mind of another person is quite impossible, and so is it impossible to judge superiority of mind by one's IQ score.
William: I see what you are saying Nodin, and I fully agree with you, but I ask this, that would it not be rare for an individual to hide his or her IQ? I was under the impression that most if not all people with high IQs are pleased with the results and would not want to hide their achievement.
Nodin: To one person, a high IQ is an achievement, a thing to be desired, but such might not be to the person with an IQ that is too high or too low. The greatest violence and negativity is thrust upon those with the greatest talents and achievements; such is obvious for us all to see. And so I ask you the question, that if a man were truly intelligent and of a much higher superiority than might be commonly believed possible, do you believe the man would be dumb enough to knowingly draw violence and negativity upon himself by admitting his level of intelligence?
William: That is an excellent point, for indeed it seems rational that the smartest man on earth would likely keep to himself and never let his talents be made known. I am now of the opinion that Sidis could not have been the smartest man on earth, because he allowed himself to become known to the public.
Nodin: Slow down my friend William, for again you have jumped into an irrational reasoning that does not necessitate the theory might be true. Let us pretend that this Sidis fellow were the smartest man on earth and he knew it, and he chose to become public in a small way so as to throw off the hunters of superior minds. I am not claiming that Sidis did choose such a thing, I am only using his name as an example, but I trust you catch my gist, that the smartest man on earth could decide any direction, of remaining secluded from the public, or entering into the public perhaps just for the entertainment of observing how the average mind reacts to the superior intellect. There are far too many possibilities, none of which anyone can verify as true or false.
William: But then we can know nothing!
Nodin: It is with my humor and friendship that I wish to inform you that you are incorrect my dear William! We can know that we know nothing! It is a truism, that when an individual arrives with the full realization that they know nothing, it is at that point where they can begin to learn.
William: I have heard a similar phrase for many years, but only now am I beginning to fathom the depths of its meaning.
Nodin: Such is the difference between the average mind and the superior mind, in that the superior mind figures things out, whereas the average mind is only tuned to memorize information. The superior mind understands, and there is a world of difference between the act of holding knowledge and the act of understanding what the knowledge implies. The mind that is born inquisitive, that learns to figure things out on its own without having to be taught knowledge, that mind is then capable of comprehending all things when grown. There is no comparison between the taught mind and the self-taught mind: a knowledge gained without analysis is no knowledge at all.
William: I have heard that Sidis' father spoke similar words, that Sidis was taught to figure things out for himself, and that he did not memorize knowledge.
Nodin: Then if that is true, that Sidis did learn through analyses and not through memorization, then it could very well be true that his was a superior mind.
William: But our schools do not teach students how to figure-out things by themselves, but rather the schools only focus on memorization. Is that not an incorrect method of education?
Nodin: Yes, it is very incorrect, and perhaps why there exists the ninety-nine-plus percent of average minds: they were taught to think that way, and they accepted the teaching method as legitimate. It would appear that a healthy average mind might achieve the level of being a superior mind if the individual were to choose to analyze knowledge instead of only memorizing information.
William: Please allow me one additional question Nodin, and I realize it is a personal topic to you, but I am asking purely with curiosity and a desire to hold correct knowledge, and not a desire to nose into your life. I have been told that at one point in your life you were a member of various high IQ societies. Is this correct?
William: I am hesitant to ask further, for I am unsure how to word my thoughts without their exiting my mouth impolitely, but the question gnaws within me of why you were a member of some societies and not a member of others. Your one-word answer tells me distinctively that the topic is indeed highly sensitive to you, and I will not press the question if you wish to not speak of it.
Nodin: It is indeed a sensitive subject William, one that I and others do know to not speak carelessly about, but I will share this much with you, that I chose the societies for specific purposes.
William: Observation? Is this what you are alluding to?
Nodin: Not necessarily observation as you might think of a psychiatrist observing the behavior of group mentality, but rather it was to learn, to research, to search-out specific individuals, and to experience new dimensions of life. I can now speak with experience about the societies, where before I could only speculate, and I always prefer experience over the fantasy that all non-members must rely on. I can now say with experience that your view of there being a high percentage of high IQ society members who are negative, is incorrect. In my experience, I found that similar to the general public, most decent people keep quiet, while the relatively few rude and negative individuals are the ones that cause all the problems. Far too many variables exist for me to explain them all, but it is sufficient for me to merely state that the general public's view of higher intelligence and high IQ societies is grossly incorrect. Without the firsthand experience of being a high IQ society member, no one can correctly interpret what it means to be a high IQ society member, and the firsthand experience was one of the primary reasons that I joined some societies. There was also always a hope of finding useful discussions that would expand beyond the generalities of general language. IQ societies are among the few places where individuals of larger vocabularies can find a suitable discussion, but still only if the individuals share a similar system of beliefs of what the words mean.
William: Was IQ score a determining factor of the societies joined? Do not all individuals aim for the highest society?
Nodin: What is the highest political society? What is the highest religious society? What is the highest academic society? Why must IQ score alone be the only determining factor for choosing a high IQ society? It is not an accurate judgment to weigh a person's choices based solely on his public record. As some of us purposefully made low grades in school so as to prevent punishment, there are also individuals who purposefully make specific grades on other tests, including those for IQ. An individual, aiming for a ninety-eight percentile on an IQ test so as to gain membership into a ninety-eight percentile IQ society, might achieve the ninety-eight percentile on that specific test, and the person might later score a ninety-nine percentile or higher on other IQ tests when choosing to join IQ societies that require the higher scores. For some individuals it is not difficult to choose and to achieve a desired score, just as it is possible to choose to purposefully blunder in a chess game, or to choose incorrect answers in a school exam, or to choose specific answers in an IQ test. An individual might aim for mediocrity in an IQ test, but still score over 140 due to the tests being too easy. Another individual may score 150 while suffering from mental dullness due to a physical illness. Until an individual applies his best effort to a test, never can it be known what the person's best score might be, and never is it logical for anyone to believe that a person's score on any test is the best score that the individual can achieve. If you have never experienced the presence of doctors and researchers desiring to vivisection you to learn what makes you different than the normal person, then you do not understand why some individuals will purposefully hide their talents. Some individuals have several test scores taken at different stages in life during different degrees of health, and the individuals might choose to use a lower-scored test for joining a society so that the public will not know of the other tests. It is not logical to jump to believe that one test score must be identical to all other scores, nor is it logical to jump to the belief that any of us can know for certain what anyone's IQ score truly is. I chose the societies that I felt were useful for my purposes, and that fairly well sums up the whole of the question. Everything else that the public wishes to believe, is pure speculation.
Except where noted, all content, layouts, and programming are
Copyright©2019 by Larry Neal Gowdy. All rights reserved.
Updated May 11, 2019
Background image color, sizing, and clarity by Larry Neal Gowdy.