Mensa

[Lucifer]

Well, I never bought into the idea that being smart meant you were good with history/science/math/literature/whatever. The best line in the Wizard of Oz (and the only thing that makes that movie worth watching) is when the wizard says "I can't make you smart, but I can give you a diploma!" Or something to that effect.

I've seen guys with very little education out-think PhDs in the PhDs area of specialty. I don't claim to have seen the world, but I do tend to think I've been around a bit more than your average bear. I've seen a cross-section of society that includes people in extreme poverty (varying education levels), typical computer geeks, upper-class professionals, and CEOs of multinational corporations. I find that everyone has been on a similar level of intelligence to everyone else, with the things that separated people into their classes being cultural. I got a dyslexic black kid from the Eastside to do lightning math in his head just by getting him to count the measures in his favorite rap song.

So I'm definitely with Ish on the idea that everybody has a similar potential. It's tricky to find a way to tap into that potential, because it's different for everybody. Schooling is geared around specific teaching methods, and the nature of the problem is such that some people will do poorly, some will do extremely well, and most will do in the middle. Change the methods slightly and cultural influences will cause the actual kids in the groups to change, but the groups themselves won't change.

Ack, I'd be the one at the party still talking to Ish about it long after the band tore down.

[ishAdmin]

So I'm definitely with Ish on the idea that everybody has a similar potential. It's tricky to find a way to tap into that potential, because it's different for everybody. Schooling is geared around specific teaching methods, and the nature of the problem is such that some people will do poorly, some will do extremely well, and most will do in the middle. Change the methods slightly and cultural influences will cause the actual kids in the groups to change, but the groups themselves won't change.

Bingo. This is where it bothers me most. I hope that one day we'll know enough on how to educate every type of person. (And be willing to pay for it!)

[Lucifer]

So I declare Mensa invalid, and if any Mensa member would like to object, I invite them to meet me on the grid and prove their superior intelligence.

[iceman]

ive seen i guy with a phd in electronics fit a mains plug to a soldering iron and plug it in

then stood there talking a load of bollocks for 20 mins not realising that he left the iron in his jacket pocket

[RUDEBOY!]

Mensa just supports a system where some people are considered better than others. I'm sure you can find other smart individuals to converse with without joining mensa, it just seems like elitism at its worst.

[nicolas.b]

all i can say is you ppl love to talk @%$@# about crap that you have no experience with.

since i am half drunk-right now i paste in a reply that i started when sober before my pissedoffedness began. and continue it:

-----------------------------

well ish and luci, i pretty much agree right down the line with what you guys wrote about the nature of intelligence. pretty-much every human in existence is a fascinating organic computer in operation, each with vast potential and each having inborn areas in which they are highly or even dazzlingly talented. and of course each having areas in which they are weak by default. (of course, again animals are the masters )

but in spite of this rationalistic reality and this positive and perhaps altruistic outlook, there is more to it IMO. if some people FEEL the need to spend a certain amount of their leisure (or professional) time around others that have passed some kind of bar, is that so terrible? is it fair to label them 'elitists' because of such a desire? because if that's so, then most professions are therefore elitist and various kinds of clubs and organisations and heirarchies are elitist. in each case there is some kind of training that must be completed and tests that must be passed in order to make the grade. just because some psychologists and the like have created puzzle (and many other) tests for areas of so-called intelligence, it could be labelled almost any way you like. and you can still train for such tests if you wish and through hard work hit a 'higher level' than you hit without the training.

and while i said i agree with youse guys on your statements earlier, i also think it's naive and strongly ideological to COMPLETELY dismiss the notion of intelligence in a generalised sense. certain people in my experience have 'talented minds' that are able to entertain a wider range of abilities, skillsets and topics more easily than others. and certain people, the reverse. this doesn't change the fact that intelligence is not uniform, even in the individual, but evidence from a neuroligal researcher friend of mine has underscored the fact that brain convolutions, not weight, contributes to overall intelligence. neanderthals may have had heavier brains, but we have more convolutions = more brain cells and more articulated pathways.

all people are NOT created equal and this is nobody's fault. intelligence is just one factor among many that determines the relative worth of the individual, altho those who would judge people in this sense i have some serious disdain for. but you people are guilty of some ideological discrimination in the fact that you don't acknowledge some of your own experential realities of 'dumbness' vs. 'smartness' (i KNOW it's happened to you, get real) and you are in some senses not even following your own ideas of TOLERANCE by acknowledging that people who have 'passed' the test in question are free to associate with their ilk without any of your condescending STIGMA.

or to summarise this as i've done many times in the past (do a topic search): YOU PEOPLE SUCK.

[Zapple]

Why are we debating this? All I wanted to see is what score you would get, its no different then a game...

lol

[Sabarai]

omg, look at all the text... all those wasted minutes by writing that

[ishAdmin]

all i can say is you ppl love to talk @%$@# about crap that you have no experience with.

In my best Jerry Springer guest voice. "You don't know me! You don't know me!"

since i am half drunk-right now i paste in a reply that i started when sober before my pissedoffedness began. and continue it:

crap, I would really prefer an entirely drunken response. they are much more fun.

-----------------------------

well ish and luci, i pretty much agree right down the line with what you guys wrote about the nature of intelligence. pretty-much every human in existence is a fascinating organic computer in operation, each with vast potential and each having inborn areas in which they are highly or even dazzlingly talented. and of course each having areas in which they are weak by default. (of course, again animals are the masters )

darn, nothing I can argue with there

but in spite of this rationalistic reality and this positive and perhaps altruistic outlook, there is more to it IMO.

ok baby, here we go

if some people FEEL the need to spend a certain amount of their leisure (or professional) time around others that have passed some kind of bar, is that so terrible?

The intention may not be terrible, but the effect is. and it's an illusion, they just ain't all that.

is it fair to label them 'elitists' because of such a desire?

yes

because if that's so, then most professions are therefore elitist

It's not reasonable to compare intelligence with a profession. A profession has very specific measures of knowledge of a particular topic. That is easily measured. General intelligence is not.

and various kinds of clubs and organisations and heirarchies are elitist.

Which is oppressive and ultimately arbitrary, based more on who you know than what you know.

in each case there is some kind of training that must be completed and tests that must be passed in order to make the grade.

perfectly reasonable if you are going to claim you are good as plumbing. You need to know specific plumbing codes and carry a licence that indicate your know them, and that you aren't a shyster.

just because some psychologists and the like have created puzzle (and many other) tests for areas of so-called intelligence, it could be labelled almost any way you like.

Even you just called it "so-called intelligence". That funny. The problem is that the tests are extremely limited. They are for a specific topic, with biases in language etc. that the researchers don't even realise. Why don't they realise this? Because they aren't smart enough to make an objective test. No one is.

and you can still train for such tests if you wish and through hard work hit a 'higher level' than you hit without the training.

Yeah, you're right, you can train to get a high mark in these tests. Doncha think some people just might do that? Could they take advantage of the biases in the test? Focus their study on the limited scope it covers? Make themselves appear smart by knowing key things? Could some mensa members be posers? hmmm.

and while i said i agree with youse guys on your statements earlier, i also think it's naive and strongly ideological to COMPLETELY dismiss the notion of intelligence in a generalised sense. certain people in my experience have 'talented minds' that are able to entertain a wider range of abilities, skillsets and topics more easily than others. and certain people, the reverse.

The problem with believing this is that it's ultimately an illusion. You are basing your judgement on subjective criteria. Someone who has poor language skills for example may not be able to articulate in an intelligent sounding fashion. Yet may grasp concepts far greater than they can 'prove' through language alone. What about the man who knows seven languages, but not English. How can he prove to you how smart he is?

this doesn't change the fact that intelligence is not uniform, even in the individual, but evidence from a neuroligal researcher friend of mine has underscored the fact that brain convolutions, not weight, contributes to overall intelligence. neanderthals may have had heavier brains, but we have more convolutions = more brain cells and more articulated pathways.

Speak with your researcher friend. Ask him what the actual relative differences in brain convolutions actually is. Even Albert Einstein, who had a measurable different brain construction almost froze to death in a Canadian motel. Why, because he couldn't figure out how to turn the heat on. And he was 'too stupid' to ask. You see, stupid is when you don't make the effort to find out. Whether through thought, or researching, or asking the guy next door. Einstein was accustomed to wood stoves. He'd never seen a thermostat before. Without help, he was unable to fully grasp the environment he was in. A five year old can understand a thermostat, why couldn't he? All of his brain convulutions sure didn't help him.

all people are NOT created equal and this is nobody's fault.

We aren't all created the same, but we are all created equal.

intelligence is just one factor among many that determines the relative worth of the individual, altho those who would judge people in this sense i have some serious disdain for.

This is one place where I have a real bone to pick, and why I responded so completely to this whole post. You said that intelligence is one factor that determines the relative worth of an individual. worth. That just doesn't sit well with me. I will not accept you or anyone decide my worth. I will not be elevated, nor will I be lowered in my worth. We are all worthy. We are all equal. I consider it a contradiction that you would say this, and then say you have disdain for those who would judge. You sound like you are judging yourself, at least in your mind if not out your mouth.

but you people are guilty of some ideological discrimination in the fact that you don't acknowledge some of your own experential realities of 'dumbness' vs. 'smartness' (i KNOW it's happened to you, get real)

I have my dumb moments, I have my smart moments, just like everybody else. I'm not sure what you think I'm not acknowledging.

and you are in some senses not even following your own ideas of TOLERANCE by acknowledging that people who have 'passed' the test in question are free to associate with their ilk without any of your condescending STIGMA.

You think I'm supposed to tolerate someone who thinks they are better than everyone else? Who thinks they are better than me, or my child? Ain't gonna happen. It's oppresive, and it's an illusion. They are deluding themselves. They can have their little club, go for it. But bikers aren't allowed to wear their colours in my house, and neither is mensa. Just another gang of thugs if you ask me. The problem is mensa folk claim to be the smartest, the top 2%. They can self delude themselves all they like, but it's their failing they can't recognize the other kinds of intelligence and embrace them. And maybe think for a moment, am I really that much smarter than my mechanic, or my paper boy? Can they not see how the entrance test is biased? How is favours the educated, and those from a certain culture. If they're so damned smart, why can't they fix their own car, or their computer, or figure out what's wrong with themselves when they're sick.

or to summarise this as i've done many times in the past (do a topic search): YOU PEOPLE SUCK.

Here's my summary. I love you. I will never think I'm smarter than any of you. I would ask you do the same.[/quote]

[Sabarai]

can u make more quotes?
or like Chandler Bing from Friends would say:

Can u QUOTE anymore??

lol

[iceman]

wow nic your pissed when your pissed

[nicolas.b]

ish, thank you very much for taking the time to go through my reply in a thoughtful, tolerant, humorous way. i enjoyed reading it very much and enjoyed getting to know you a little better.

altho i prolly agree with about 85% of what you say, i think we have reached the ideological divide at this point. respect and admiration goes out to you and luci and anyone else willing to debate me, but i'm not sure i have the energy or attention-span to continue... (plus the beer cans are all empty )

[Lucifer]

all i can say is you ppl love to talk @%$@# about crap that you have no experience with.

shit is the word that fills in the blank

well ish and luci, i pretty much agree right down the line with what you guys wrote about the nature of intelligence. pretty-much every human in existence is a fascinating organic computer in operation, each with vast potential and each having inborn areas in which they are highly or even dazzlingly talented. and of course each having areas in which they are weak by default. (of course, again animals are the masters )

Not much question about that. Whatever intelligence is, it's obviously going to be affected by genetics and cultural upbringing, and probably a few other things.

but in spite of this rationalistic reality and this positive and perhaps altruistic outlook, there is more to it IMO. if some people FEEL the need to spend a certain amount of their leisure (or professional) time around others that have passed some kind of bar, is that so terrible? is it fair to label them 'elitists' because of such a desire? because if that's so, then most professions are therefore elitist and various kinds of clubs and organisations and heirarchies are elitist. in each case there is some kind of training that must be completed and tests that must be passed in order to make the grade. just because some psychologists and the like have created puzzle (and many other) tests for areas of so-called intelligence, it could be labelled almost any way you like. and you can still train for such tests if you wish and through hard work hit a 'higher level' than you hit without the training.

If the test truly measures raw intelligence, and raw intelligence is something that can't be changed, then the fact that you can train for the test demonstrates the invalidity of the test. Once the test is invalid, the claims the group makes in relation to the test become invalid also. Continuing to make these claims, then, would be described as what?

and while i said i agree with youse guys on your statements earlier, i also think it's naive and strongly ideological to COMPLETELY dismiss the notion of intelligence in a generalised sense. certain people in my experience have 'talented minds' that are able to entertain a wider range of abilities, skillsets and topics more easily than others. and certain people, the reverse. this doesn't change the fact that intelligence is not uniform, even in the individual, but evidence from a neuroligal researcher friend of mine has underscored the fact that brain convolutions, not weight, contributes to overall intelligence. neanderthals may have had heavier brains, but we have more convolutions = more brain cells and more articulated pathways.

People are able to build their skills for a variety of reasons. How many people have you known have been unable to build a certain skill because of simple confidence problems? Rusty didn't think he could learn to read, he was too dumb.

I'm not dismissing the notion of intelligence in a general sense, I'm dismissing the notion that we know enough to make an unbiased test that measures intelligence. And failing that, we're hardly in a position to create a special group based on whatever tests we have. We just can't measure intelligence right now. I think Saburai's probably the best example of all this. He scored what I owuld consider pathetically low on the test, but not because he's dumb. Because English isn't his first language. What else do you need to demonstrate the invalidity of the test?

When my wife was younger, she got several of her friends to kick her ass. Then she was a Crip. I refused to take that test, too. I don't see any difference between that and the Mensa test. Both differentiate you from "everyone else" by arbitrary and biased standards.

all people are NOT created equal and this is nobody's fault. intelligence is just one factor among many that determines the relative worth of the individual, altho those who would judge people in this sense i have some serious disdain for. but you people are guilty of some ideological discrimination in the fact that you don't acknowledge some of your own experential realities of 'dumbness' vs. 'smartness' (i KNOW it's happened to you, get real) and you are in some senses not even following your own ideas of TOLERANCE by acknowledging that people who have 'passed' the test in question are free to associate with their ilk without any of your condescending STIGMA.

I could go on and on and on about all the stupid things I've seen people do. And you know it, there's not reason for me to reference any of it. But whenever I see someone do something that's obviously dumb, I question what factors affected their decision to do it, whatever it is. Something might be obviously dumb because I know more about the situation. In other cases, something that was obviously dumb turned out to be brilliant and *I* was the dumb one. You've seen it yourself, I'll bet, you can back this up without me having to write another long story.

That still doesn't change the fact that the Mensa test is invalid. There is still too much that is not known about how the mind works, and too much disagreement on what skills and traits constitute intelligence. Just a recap:

Zapple (aged 12?) 21 out of 30. Probably will score higher on the exact same test in 4 years, and higher again 2-4 years after that. Zapple's not dumb, just young. Luckily his attitude is inline with Mensa's attitude, so when he can pass the test he'll probably enjoy being part of Mensa. he already looks down on all of us anyway.

Me (aged 29) 25 out of 30. Probably would have scored lower without GOOGLE. (How the hell else would I anagram insatiable? )

Saburai (I forget his age, teen I think) 19 out of 30 (right score?). Would have scored higher if the test had been in his native language. Probably would have scored even higher if the test was in his native language *and* developed by his countrymen.

Now, if this "sample" test is as unbiased an objective as the Mensa entrance exam, according to these results, I'm smarter then Zapple, who's smarter than Saburai. So, hm, maybe the test is unbiased after all.

Note the test didn't time specific questions because the Mensa guys aren't smart enough to figure out how to make it work (it's not that hard, BrainBench can do it, and I can't imagine it taking me longer than half an hour to make it happen myself).

Now, about tolerance, I figure I tolerate Mensa the same way I tolerate religion. So I take it with a grain of salt. I have my own opinions on the matter, and I certainly won't be the one to try and stop them from having their fun. That would be a violation of the Golden Rule. I probably won't pass up a chance to take figurative potshots at them and attempt to engage their intelligence by doing so.

or to summarise this as i've done many times in the past (do a topic search): YOU PEOPLE SUCK.

I think it would have been more accurate to say "the people here suck".

[ishAdmin]

Nic, about your empty beer cans. My heart goes out to you. I enjoyed conversing with you, and I appreciate you seeing the humour I put in.

And I still reserve the right to make fun of mensa. It's just too darn fun for me.

Oh, and remember the song i mentioned way long ago, every os sucks. Here's the link: http://download2.ampcast.com/AUD-72209- ... _Sucks.mp3

You might need to copy the link and paste it into a new browser window. Anyone who into puters will find it a laugh. Listen for the line "elitist nerdy schmucks".

[Zapple]

[Zapple] already looks down on all of us anyway.

Not true