Brandon Feick on Intelligence Testing, AI, Creativity, and the Philosophy of Good

Brandon Feick is an independent high-range I.Q. test writer associated with the Glia Society. He is credited with tests including The Breeze, Random Feickery, The Tempest, and Magnum Opus. He has appeared in interviews discussing intelligence, intuition, language, and creativity. In conversation, Feick presents himself as a speculative, intuitive thinker interested in problem-solving beyond conventional metrics, the limits of language, and the hidden architecture of thought. His reflections combine personal experience, abstract philosophy, and a restless curiosity about the mind, meaning, and human potential in an era of AI change.

In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Brandon Feick, an independent high-range IQ test writer associated with the Glia Society, about intelligence, creativity, language, intuition, morality, science, AI, and the limits of expression. Feick reflects on how he designs puzzle-based test items, why he sees problem-solving as broader than standard IQ measures, and how technology may transform the identification of intelligence. He also explores God as synonymous with Good, doubts an afterlife, critiques simplistic truths, and meditates on thought, memory, writing, evolution, and human potential with a speculative, deeply personal philosophical voice across ethics, politics, perception, and lived experience.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the purpose of intelligence tests to you?

Brandon Feick: The purpose of an I.Q. test is to look for particular problem-solving capabilities within a person. The purpose of I.Q. tests, in my opinion, is tied to the vision I have of what they could be. High-range IQ tests can identify individuals with exceptional problem-solving capabilities. As of now, as far as I know, it mostly ends there, but I imagine its possibilities in being a recruitment process. I go in and out of periods of grandiosity. Since I've become an I.Q. test writer, I tell myself it just comes with the territory. I would love to see the world of I.Q. testing find an individual who can assemble the various minds there to achieve something remarkable.

In the age of AI, I predict that people will program AI to identify intelligent people. This is where things get interesting. AI could evaluate every word spoken by a person with a phone, every thought typed, every Google search, every idea created on a computer or a phone, if by chance AI were allowed to have all that data. Either way, people will use AI to identify both intelligent and unintelligent individuals in the future.

I could have lived my whole life without thinking much about I.Q. testing. All the tests you first find in the top spots on search engines and social media are mumbo jumbo. If you scroll deeper down quite a ways, it is still mumbo jumbo. That’s all you’ll see when you type in IQ test, and most people aren’t going to look much deeper than that or add modifying words to the search. I think you’d need a stroke of luck to come across the high-IQ community online. As for me, I was feeling philosophical and curious one night after polishing off a few beers and a joint… my friend earlier that night had mentioned a particular celebrity having a high IQ. I forget what I typed into the search engine, but I came across a test that was supposed to be a replica of Mensa's test. There was an associated email address that I still have in my email: [email protected]. The test costed a fee. After the fairly extensive test, I received a score of 135 and a short informational paragraph which I’ll quote from: “Anyone with a general IQ this high is undoubtedly a genius. From this range on, only specific high-range tests should be considered.” Because of that email, I eventually discovered high-range I.Q. testing. It was 2-3 years later when I started looking for high-range tests.

On another note, I’d like to mention something about the high-range IQ test community… there’s authors out there that only have a few test submissions after having it available for a year or two. This gives some insight into how small the community actually is. It includes just a barely visible portion of high IQ people that are out there. The community being so small is one of the reasons some of my family and friends think it’s a bunch of baloney. I wish the community was bigger. Mensa worldwide has a lot of members… maybe I will look into joining Mensa one day, but the High-range IQ test community is very small.

Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the God concept or the idea of gods, philosophy, theology, and religion?

Feick: I believe in the light of Good. Not everyone knows of God, and what God is varies across different parts of the world. I believe that God is Good in that God = Good. First and foremost, I believe in Good in the world.

Good has brought us this far, and so we must continue to have faith in Good.

Some people may imagine God as a living being. Some people may imagine that God is nature. Some people may imagine that God is the thread that connects every living being. Some people believe God created the universe. I think of God as a means to achieve Good in the world. I strongly believe the idea of God has helped humanity evolve to where it is now.

Jacobsen: Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, why, and what form? If not, why not? Does this lack of belief in an afterlife make this life more worthwhile or less worthwhile?

Feick: Unfortunately, I do not believe in an afterlife. I believe my brain and the idea of my self would no longer exist. I would no longer have conscious thought. In ways that I am entangled with the world, I may continue onward at some level, but I do not think too hard beyond that.

I imagine that believing in an afterlife is more motivating and more worthwhile than believing there isn't one. I wish there were an afterlife, but I just don’t think there is. I do not ever want my mind to be gone entirely. I think my mind is too wonderful a thing than to disappear and be no more.

Personally, I feel like having a lack of belief in the afterlife makes me feel more free, and it has less feeling of responsibility, which gets me to thinking… it’s probably best that people do believe in the afterlife. I like to enjoy life. For me, this is it… everything my life has been will be gone and I will be no more. I want to enjoy myself, and as well, I care deeply about the world I leave behind. I care for the wellbeing of those who are living when I die and for those yet to be born. I believe mankind would have to be mostly good to reach the point that it has now, even if it is partially tied to necessity… the survival of one’s community helps the survival of one’s self, and I think that makes most people naturally prone to being or doing good.

Jacobsen: Is profound intelligence necessary for genius?

Feick: Profound intelligence is not required to do something that can be described as genius, whether it is an achievement in a short series of moments in time or the cumulation of a longer series of moments. However, in cases where someone is described as a genius in fields such as music, literature, or science, I believe profound intelligence is required.

Jacobsen: How much does science play into your worldview?

Feick: Science is the result of the evolution of human intelligence and has become an integral part of everyone’s life. In this day and age, I think it should play a strong role in everyone’s world view. Technology is becoming so advanced that when we think about the future, we have to think about it in terms of technology and the coming advancements that will be made.

Jacobsen: You said, "Nobody wants the pain of living." What about masochists who attain intrinsic pleasure from pain in living?

Feick: That thought was a whim… a fleeting moment. At the time, I thought it felt poetic. In retrospect, maybe it was pessimistic and assumptive. In a way people don’t want the pain of living or dying, but who wants pain anyway? There are times when a heightened sense of feeling is wonderful. I don’t understand masochists… I suppose they’re a rare breed. I think in the world it’s becoming more important for people to be able to distinguish what is truth and what is not. If people looked up in the dictionary all of the words they think they know, they’d probably be shocked to find out how often the definition varies from how they’ve always imagined the definition to be. I’ve ran into this a lot lately. Over the past few years, I’ve googled words here and there just to see if I am using them right to accurately represent my thought. As it turns out, I was making and still make a lot of mistakes. I probably always will. In a way, the limit of ourselves is our expression. It is difficult to understand the difference between a thought and the words we use to express it. Sometimes it’s nice to take some time and think about how the words in which we think may differ from the thoughts in our minds.

Jacobsen: What are the other forms of problem-solving capabilities outside of I.Q. tests?

Feick: In this moment, I think of problem-solving as an ability to see the connectedness between things, what they are or could be, develop and follow reason, which requires creativity, combined with a high level of intuition. Any developed skill requires problem-solving. Understanding people's emotions while considering what is going on in their lives, engaging in philosophical conversation… having the ability to store and recall information in a useful way. The ability to envision the past, present, and future states of things as they interconnect, to see the many possibilities, and to decide what has value from the perspective you are interpreting it from.

How many people out there believe in fate or destiny in life? I do… I believe in my own. However, I also believe if I walked into a casino and made bets that the result would be pure luck.

There is an interesting thing about experience: over time, through evolution, it becomes ingrained in one's being and no longer requires intellectual effort. It becomes natural.

Jacobsen: Could this belief in "Good in the world" be making the mistake of the Just World Hypothesis, postulated as a cognitive bias in psychology?

Feick: Just-World Hypothesis: a cognitive bias in which people believe the world is fundamentally fair, assuming people "get what they deserve." This hypothesis, I believe, is proposed just for the sake of having fun in making arguments. Is that what the mistake is in believing in it?

Who is to say what is fair? I do not think the just-world hypothesis could apply equally to everyone. There’s too many variables. Suppose that in trying to do good or be fair, we could actually be doing something bad or unfair.

When I think of what just is, or what justice is, I think of something that is a declaration based on a cultures particular beliefs.

Jacobsen: What would be cases of geniuses in popular culture not seen as such by the intelligentsia?

Feick: A particular dictionary definition of genius starts with "exceptional intelligence or creative power." I think of it as an ability to grasp and understand things and ideas to a degree far beyond what is normal.

Popular culture (stuff enjoyed by the public): sports players, actors, entrepreneurs, competitive video game players, and artists/painters. It’s true, these people can accurately be described as genius. However, the intelligentsia, I believe, would be more concerned with a particular type of genius, those who can express their thoughts in words and contribute to intellectual conversation. Any particular person in the above professions may or may not also be a genius in the eyes of the intelligentsia.

Jacobsen: You showed me a photo. Hot weather! How are you feeling in the heat, man? You look tired and dehydrated, though surviving. Thank you for completing these interviews despite the heat, by the way.

Feick: I realized that summer of how intense heat can affect productive thought. It’s quite difficult. I spent a lot of the summer playing mindless games on my iphone. That was 2023, and the temperatures in the garage stayed between 87-96 degrees F. I bought a dehumidifier and literally kept it right beside me.

Jacobsen: Does Google help with any high-range types of tests outside of searching for "transience of life"?

Feick: Absolutely. There are some websites that can be useful for solving questions made by high-range test authors. I will not list any sites or explain how they may be useful. If the author allows the internet to be used, than if you find a site that helps you with a question or two, than maybe that’s worth some credit, because it takes intelligence to make the best use of resources available to you. Most important is for authors to be mindful of this and limit the amount of questions that the internet can help solve.

Jacobsen: How have the people close to you responded to what you have accomplished?

Feick: My family says they are proud. Friends I’ve talked with don’t seem too interested, so it didn’t take long for me to wise up and quit going around telling people. But, I still do occasionally. People outside the online intellectual community do not see things the same way. My family sees what I do as a game I think, and maybe they are right. Many people in the high-range testing community are IQ test hobbyists. For many of us, it’s like a sport… it’s fun to play/do, and sometimes it’s fun too to shoot for a new high score. I’ve shown my family items I’ve written and they seem excited for a few minutes, but I don’t think they really look at the items after that.

Jacobsen: What draws you to intelligence testing and that community now?

Feick: For me, it’s fun. I could spend an hour plugging numbers into a calculator, and not because I’m trying out equations or something (I haven’t even learned Calculus), but I mean just adding, multiply, dividing, subtracting, squaring or cubing numbers and finding their roots, and I would describe that hour by saying I enjoyed it. I like the idea of being able to test intelligence. On my better items, I feel like I can imagine the different things someone might be thinking while looking at the item… the insights they come to, the things they will try, and how, if successful, they will find the answer. I think of what is truly possible to learn through IQ testing. At the limit of possibility, if a test was extensive enough, it could become a an in-depth map of how someone’s mind works in understanding and solving problems. I am drawn to the creative process and I also enjoy trying out items others create. Honestly, since I first began taking IQ tests, I think I’ve only joined 3 communities, and I’ve only had conversations with a handful of people.

Wouldn’t it be fun if tests developed by the I.Q. community became one of humanity's last stands against the AI singularity? People are always looking for something to fight for: politics, religion, sports… I’d like to fight for the representation of the depth and beauty of the human mind. As for politics, I assume that the powers that be know more than I ever will about the highest stages of world politics. I do not have the knowledge to make decisions at the highest level. There is also too much information not available to the public. All I can do is try to pick up on enough information to expand my mind, aside from wholly devoting my mind the topic. Almost everyone wants to critique the highest stage of politics, but they cannot see the whole picture to begin with.

Jacobsen: What are your thoughts on power and who should guide the future?

Feick: I would support a candidate with high intelligence that looks at both the short and long term future of humanity, and ideally the candidate would be more focused on the long term future than the short, although one must be mindful of what is definite in the long term future and what is not.

I choose to believe that there are people so powerful in the world that you will never hear their names and that the only reason the world has a balance at all is because of people like this. I believe in the powers that be, in people that I will never know the names of, and believe that they are out there making sure the world, as a whole, will be ok. I believe these people, going back centuries perhaps, but maybe not, are much of what has gotten the world to the point that it is now. Many people want to stand up against and fight what is behind the veil. As for me, I place my trust in it.

Jacobsen: What do you make of how people experience cold?

Feick: In my head, I say things like, "You are only as cold as you think you are." If you did not think about being cold, then would you be cold? At some point, yes. What if it is just cold enough for a few people to start shivering? Does that make you feel colder? I like to picture myself on a tropical beach. It only helps to some degree, but for me, it definitely helps. Can you adjust your thoughts so you do not shiver? I read that some monks can adjust their core body temperature. I wonder what they think about when they go through this process.

Jacobsen: How do you think information should be held in the mind?

Feick: That I’m not quite sure of. That’s a complex topic. I like the idea of taking in information and storing it as floating truths. On one hand it’s factual and true, but it’s not wholly set in stone, and is open to change, depending on the circumstances.

Jacobsen: How do you think about thoughts and words themselves?

Feick: Words are capsules of information, and that is where things can get complicated. What people describe as big words are typically less known and contain more information. Are they really needed? Things get tricky. Using words like these can complicate things for many people, and it has happened to me quite often. I have never had a fancy for using big words. I prefer to use words I feel most comfortable with, because I feel that it maximizes the chance that I am using them to express my thoughts properly. It is hard enough to choose the right simple words to accurately express the thought I am trying to express, which inherently also involves converting that thought into words. It feels really hard sometimes to separate thought from the words we use to express it, because we are each constantly drawn to a particular set of words. It gets to the point where we do not really think pure thoughts. We merely think through the word choices we have to express thought, and those options often reflect the words we use in our day-to-day lives.

Sometimes, I lie around trying to figure out what I am thinking of when I get a feeling that I am thinking of something, but I do not know what it is. How do you ever know what a thought truly is if all you really have is a translation that uses a limited word bank?

As I think of a conclusion, it is this: art forms, expression, words are a complicated maze of saying this is a thing and that is a thing and this thing does a thing that affects things and is a part of some things that do things in thingily ways to thingy things, and perhaps less thingy things may affect things in other thingily ways if, of course, a thing is always a thing that can be called a thing. It is no wonder so many visual, performance, and musical artists explore their art form and nothing more. Accurately converting that into a valuable written thought is difficult.

Jacobsen: What could be the future of I.Q. testing, considering what AI will become in the next few years? What should it be?

Feick: The current community is too small, in my opinion. Some people fear it becoming too big and becoming mainstream. It could hurt the current I.Q. community if answers spread which could invalidate the scores on many tests out there. Since it’s not an exact science to begin with, and since each question probably shouldn’t hold the same weight anyway, and since a large portion of the small community are really just hobbyists, than maybe it’s ok to think, let’s take this system that’s been built, and let’s try to use it to do something great in the world, even if it forever changes what the IQ community is now. For those who want to keep it as it is, becoming too mainstream is not the only thing they should fear. Within years, AI might be able to bring the whole thing down by solving most of the public items out there. After that, then all you could really have is officially proctored tests, and if you were going to do that, you’d probably want a larger community… a larger sample size.

Jacobsen: How do you turn an idea into a test item?

Feick: In quite a few questions I write, the last step is choosing how to turn it into a question. Sometimes I have ideas written out that I want to make an item out of. I’ll look at it and try to figure out how to set up a question or what information to take out to make a question. This last step includes setting the item's difficulty level.

I often start by writing ideas for questions, even if simple, and as the writing session goes on I try to think of more advanced ideas. I look anywhere and everywhere for inspiration. Sometimes, I find ideas while taking tests designed by others. As I am trying to think of an answer to a question, sometimes an idea for what a question could be pops into my head. Sometimes, looking at how another author poses a question can inspire me.

Once, for fun, I created triangular pyramids out of paper and began taping them to together, and then I came up with the question “How many triangular pyramids, placed together at their side faces, are needed to create a face-on view shaped like a pentagon?”

Given the rate of AI advancement, I worry that AI will be able to solve many of my questions within the next few years. If that by chance does happen, than I might find myself being willing to describe how I had written some of those items. I could give much more insight if I referenced specific examples, so it will be interesting to see what the future brings.

Jacobsen: How would you describe yourself as a writer of items which you create to test intelligence? Do you have any background that makes you a good candidate to create such items?

Feick: In reality, I create puzzles. I create questions that must be figured out and solved in some way. That is the goal anyway. I call it an IQ test because of the intelligence it requires to solve the items I write. I like to write items that are difficult to solve. These are also the types of items that I enjoy solving. I have no professional background in what I do. What I do, I take seriously though, and I do it at the highest level that I can.

Because I have no formal background, I obviously cannot vouch for the accuracy of the test results. In fact, I would recommend not taking them too seriously. Most simply, I aim to create items that require high intelligence to solve, and I also hope that people enjoy solving the items I write.

Jacobsen: What else do you think intelligence testing should try to measure?

Feick: I believe that pretty much anything is testable. It comes down to what kind of expertise you prioritize and seek in a person. By what means would you like to place a value on one's ability? You may measure one's ability to coordinate people best to complete an exceptionally difficult task. You could present a problem and ask someone what they might invent to fix it. Someone's I.Q. should not be bound to a narrow set of abilities, especially given the infinite amount of processing every human mind does every day. I.Q. is in our ability to read and react, which goes beyond words on pages and into every calculated moment of our lives, our ability to interact with people, to understand people and their mindset, to perceive danger, and to have intuition and creativity in the many forms by which they may apply in our lives. Instinct is intelligence in its most compact form, shaped by evolution.

Jacobsen: What are your thoughts on information in the environment around us?

Feick: If I remember to do so, I will think some thoughts about how information is out there everywhere, just floating in the air. Everywhere people go, and especially where other people have been, there is information floating in the air that might affect you or me whenever we travel through that space, whether we know it or not. Smoke from a forest fire can travel for thousands of miles. A human body "gives off" information, and for much longer than it exists in a specific location in time. Imagine hunting dogs and animals that can smell a scent from a mile away. It is not just scent that travels this far. It is information.

Jacobsen: How do you think about your own writing, and about reading, memory, language, and creativity in your own life?

Feick: Sometimes when I write thoughts, I agree with them when I read them again, and sometimes I do not. You cannot believe everything you read. At best, you take something from it that benefits your mind, depending on what you are looking for, or maybe something catches your eye. I have moments of grandiosity. I could avoid these moments if I wanted to, but on the one hand, I enjoy them. Everyone wants to feel bold and empowered sometimes. I often choose to run with the moment, within reason. I am probably not using the word "grandiosity" exactly right, because what I am expressing does not match its definition, even though I feel the message is delivered clearly enough. Here I am, struggling to use words correctly again.

I have never heard of a class where you must analyze statements by consulting the dictionary for each word in the statement before responding to it. I think a course like that would be fun.

Most of my life, I just read through what I read and take from things what I can. Lately, I have Googled words off and on, because a little while back, I realized how many words I actually misuse, and they are not even big words. They’re common words.

Something within survival techniques causes people to store and pull information in different ways. It raises questions about race and ancestry over lengths of 100, 1,000, or 10,000 years. Some people can remember auditory information verbatim. I rarely retain more than a few excerpts of auditory information well. I remember written information very well though. My mind mainly locks in the summary of things… a simplified version. That’s how I store most things. Some people’s minds can remember every exact detail of things and recall it later. I’m not sure what gives them this ability. I imagine thoughts existing in both the conscious and subconscious. I imagine thoughts fluctuating at multiple levels until they finally reach the top, conscious thought.

Regarding creativity, I can say this: I played guitar for 10 years, on most days an hour or two, on other days more. I learned the basic chords and an occasional riff here and there, but that’s about it. I spent all of my time picking around until I found something that sounded interesting, then tried to make a song out of it, then repeat. I love creative exploration. Anything I wrote, I recorded, but I never remembered how to play anything I wrote a few days later. After all of that time playing guitar, I couldn’t ever play a song for someone. I never retained the information long enough to do that. All that I could do was play a few ideas that popped into my head. After that, I drew blanks . I approach writing test items in a similar way… I play around with ideas until one begins to fee special and then it goes from there.

I would love to know so much more about science and everything else in the world. Still, I am never at a loss for creative exploration with the information I do have. I like to take in new information and ideas as they come, let them resonate awhile, and see what comes of them at the end. I could further my thoughts by learning more about science and such, but I spend most of my time going with the flow of what’s already in my mind and grabbing onto thoughts here and there as they flow by.

Jacobsen: How do you think about your intuition and your sense of yourself?

Feick: I believe I am one of the best and brightest. If I didn’t believe it, I would simply choose to feel this way anyway. I think confidence is required when trying to do anything at a high level.

Sometimes, I wonder why I think I am special. Is it because I have a high level of intuition? Is it just part of being human? I do not look people in the eyes for too long because I begin to feel too much. Is that normal?

Jacobsen: Is morality enacted, something more properly given plenty of thought in each moment, or developed as an innate part of character to emerge naturally in each moment?

Feick: Having high morals is partly learned, though moral disposition may also have innate components.

Jacobsen: Is the reference to evolution limited to the biological tree of life, or is it extended to the biological tree of life in connection with Big Bang cosmology's singularity, which evolves into parameters and conditions that permit carbon-based life, such as us?

Feick: I forget what I wrote in the initial interview that this question stems from. I was probably referring to the biological tree of life. It’s mind blowing to think that everything could go back to a single point that split two ways, and split again, and split again, and eventually evolved and became intelligent… any thinking along those lines.

Jacobsen: How do personal wants feed into ideologies? Or how do ideologies come out of the mass of personal wants as justifications for personal wants?

Feick: What would an ideology be without some personal wanting? I’ll be honest and say that I can’t think of much of a response to this right now. I feel like I’d have to think on it for awhile and do brainstorming. At least, that’s the way I’d like to approach this question, and today is my last day to finish and edit my responses.

Jacobsen: What about the cuts in individual worldlines, so to speak, from one individual organism's life to another's? In that, there is a clear distinction between approximate life start and life end, so there are lines, perhaps coarse, but definite to some degree. So, this evolution in a more "metaphysicalist," so-called, sense or a more physicalist continuum sense with overlapping folds of individual organisms' worldlines seems to break down into consecutive stages of life-reproduction-death, life-reproduction-death, with everything, in the end, dying, or "existing" with complete cessation of physiological functions within 1 second to 120 years. Where the physiological becomes the physical, life ends. Evolution's tree is a strange mix of continuum and definitude, and statistical overlap.

Feick: This is a super fascinating question! You really opened the door for me to do some deep thinking, and I procrastinated in working on these last items of the interview. In a way, when I think of it, life is one continuous being. It reproduces…makes a younger copy of itself, and then dies, but in a way, it’s like it never died at all. I find it interesting that I could spend quite awhile trying to wrap my mind around your question.

Jacobsen: Following on from the previous question, or even the idea of a "must" in evolution, if you look at the reproductive statistics of most human beings now, a large portion will never reproduce; their DNA lineage or genetic line ends with them. Evolution may not be about musts, in this sense. This argues against the use of must or generic plurals of must. In contrast, the prior statement argues for a tree of life with dead ends and statistically patterned reproductive cycles. What if there is no intention, no purpose, no teleology, no "must," no explanation, as others have written centuries before: no governor anywhere?

Feick: This is another question where I feel like I’d have to break it down, brainstorm, and write some notes and then turn that into an answer. Up until these last questions, as soon as I finished reading the question, I found myself ready to start jotting down thoughts. Even if I haven’t answered these questions here in the interview, they are definitely questions that I would like to spend time thinking about.

Jacobsen: Why do we cathect with love?

Feick: We invest mental and emotional energy into this feeling because of the fulfillment we gain from it. Love has a lot to do with the self. Unfortunately, this answer will also be incomplete, but on the bright side, there’s a lot to read and think about within these pages.

I am thankful for you showing curiosity in my thoughts. Thank you Scott for everything you have done. You have put a lot of time and effort into these interviews and have done an amazing job.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Brandon.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is a blogger on Vocal with over 130 posts on the platform. He is the Founder and Publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978–1–0692343; 978–1–0673505) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369–6885). He writes for International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN, 0018–7399; Online: ISSN, 2163–3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), Humanist Perspectives (ISSN: 1719–6337), A Further Inquiry (SubStack), Vocal, Medium, The Good Men Project, The New Enlightenment Project, The Washington Outsider, rabble.ca, and other media. His bibliography index can be found via the Jacobsen Bank at In-Sight Publishing,, comprising more than 10,000 articles, interviews, and republications across more than 200 outlets. He has served in national and international leadership roles within humanist and media organizations, held several academic fellowships, and currently serves on several boards. He is a member in good standing in numerous media organizations, including the Canadian Association of Journalists, PEN Canada (CRA: 88916 2541 RR0001), Reporters Without Borders (SIREN: 343 684 221/SIRET: 343 684 221 00041/EIN: 20–0708028), and others.