HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matthew Ivaliotes)
Subject: Re: Help....college is killing me!!!!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:49:18 GMT

jcooley@miracle.com (John Cooley) writes:
>Matt, wait until you get to the "real" world!

A term I hate and always have.  At least it puts real in quotes.

>You'll have office politics, mortgauges, medical bills, unemployment
>checks, lawyers and college loans to deal with!  Throw on top dealing
>with your interpersonal relationships, 40 to 60 hour work weeks, kids
>and parental expectations plus a crappy economy where you'll be graduating
>into a world where the American Dream has been reduced to have an above
>minimum wage job that gives you a decent health plan!

I already have soime level of office politics, deal with lawyers too often, 
have always dealt with interpersonal relationships (don't see how this is any
different in the 'real' world, but I'm sure someone here will tell me), already
have a 40 to 60 hour work week, and consider leaving college my true escape
from parental expectations.  If my folks don't like what I do in college, they
can stop paying for it.  If they don't like what I do for a living, they can
bite me.

>And these great ideas you're having now will have to wait until you
>solve these basic economic problems we all face.  After  a while, you'll
>find that to pursue *any* idea you'll have to really believe in it
>because you'll face resistance to it from other people also trying to
>solve their own econimic problems.  Most of the time this is not an
>active resistance as much as an indifference from others because they're
>too pre-occupied with their lives.

I couldn't agree with you more.  Again, this is not neccessarily true only of
the off-campus world.  College students are just as money-centered (if not more
so, on many campuses) as anyone else.  Most only pretend to care.

>I can really envy your enthusiasm and creativity; get a notbook and
>write your thoughts out in detail - because in a few years you'll
>most likely not have time for such things.

That is a good suggestion, indeed, no matter how little I like the grim future
it predicts for my mind.  Thanks.

>-John

Matt
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: jt@fuw.edu.pl (Jerzy Tarasiuk)
Subject: Re: RESULTS FOR TAI STANDARD INTELLIGENCE TEST
Organization: Warsaw University Physics Dept.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:32:47 GMT

>>>>> On 5 Nov 92 13:37:51 GMT, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) said:
Steve> Nntp-Posting-Host: ug2.cs.dal.ca
Steve> In article <1992Nov5.031100.27122@ncsu.edu> scott@bogus.network.address (Scott Tai) writes:
>
>The posts are the only tangible information one has
>about rec.org.mensa posters, and these conclusions 
>are based solely on this information.  Cases like
>this are when standardized tests are useful...

Steve>    If you think that the analysis of sentence structure is an effective
Steve> means by which one can analyze and conclusively summate one's intelligence,
Steve> then you are sorely mistaken and an exception to your own rule.
Steve>    The readability quotients of one's literature has a minute if non-
Steve> existant correlation to one's intelligence (Don't read much psychology
Steve> do you?). Whether one choose to eloquently express and each every nuance
Steve> of their literary prose or not is by no means a careful or accurate 
Steve> indication of their intelligence. 

I suppose someone more intelligent can express same information in
shorter sentence. Or in a way easier to understand by someone less
intelligent or less learned than writer. For example books written
by Albert Einstein or Richard Phillips Feynman are easy to read,
although they describe some physics theories which are very hard
to understand when described by anyone other.

Steve>    I think this raises an interesting point within the Mensa culture. I tried
Steve> to address it in a recent post on the qualities and measures of "global"Steve> intelligence, but I fear I'm already in everyone's killfile 8)

Not in mine. But last weeks I had no time to read this newsgroup.

Steve>    In any case - I suppose the key phrase of yours Scott is that this is
Steve> all you have to go on, but that isn't true. The subjective analysis of one's
Steve> concepts and ideas should carry much more weight than the grammatical 
Steve> structure with which one's ideas are presented. Although your motivations

Fact. Translating Einstein's book to other language which probably
significantly changes gramatical structure doesn't destroy its
easy-understanding property.

Steve> are meritable, I don't think that these numbers mean a whole lot. Of course,
Steve> since I came almost last in everything, perhaps it's possible that I do
Steve> have an IQ of 93. I don't think so however...

Don't worry, I had very similar average sentence/word length and
even worse readability. And I know my intelligence is quite high.
Anyone (you?) having comparable can be proud, even in mensa.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Subject: Re: IQ Test Creation Question
Reply-To: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:50:38 GMT

In article <4125@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>, stein@bcstec.ca.boeing.com
(Halden Stein) writes:

>It seems that
>the test creators would need to have higher IQs than the test takers.

I've never understood the reasoning behind that.  Why does nobody ask
how a builder can build a building higher than the builder?  Neither
tests nor buildings are created unaided in a single step.  Just as a
building creator builds supports on which to work, uses tools, and takes
longer to build a building than a person takes to walk through it, a
test creator researches questions, uses tools, and takes more time to
create a test than a person takes to take the test.


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@rusure.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: t: IQ and Intelligence: What's wrong with testing?
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 18:30:00 GMT


>-----------------------------------------------
>James Fallows
>IQ and Intelligence: What's Wrong With Testing?
>-----------------------------------------------
>...
>   There is, then, nothing in nature that dictates that intelligence
>be distributed along a bell curve, with the normal proportions of
>genius and morons and people with average IQs.  So how can we be
>sure that intelligence is really distributed that way?  In fact, we
>can't; no one is sure just how it is distributed.  The bell curve
>was invented for analytic convenience, not because anyone believed
>that it resembled the real, underlying pattern of intelligence.
>That is, if test makers produced a set of questions, but students'
>scores on the test did not follow a "normal" distribution, then the
>questions themselves must be bad.  Good questions were those which
>yielded a bell-shaped curve.
>   IQ scores now fall into a bell curve mainly because that is where
>the original English and American psychometricians thought they
>should fall.

Well, the motivation for starting with the bell-curve assumption is a
little stronger than that.  If you assume that IQ is determined by a
large number of relatively independent factors, you would *expect*
something like a bell curve.  That's simply the Central Limit Theorem in
probability.  If you look at how the IQ scale was first established, it
merely refers to age-related performance differences among children.
Given that definition, there's hard data showing the distribution is
approximately normal.

I'm assuming James Fallows is equating IQ and intelligence (a dubious
assumption, in my opinion), in which case he's wrong.  If not, his whole
argument is moot because he hasn't defined intelligence.  How can you
debate whether or not an undefined quantity has a normal distribution?
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: matt@severian.chi.il.us (Matt Crawford)
Subject: Re: Xerox of GMAT score OK for admission?
Organization: The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:44:27 GMT

Ken Gacioch:
> BTW, and for the annoyance of one and all, "Xerox" is not a verb,
> any more than you Kirby your carpet ...  Xerox is based here in
> Rochester, NY, and spends multi dineri to try to keep from losing
> its rights to its trademark.

Ah, but that's *their* worry, and not mine.  I own no Xerox stock and
won't lose any sleep over anyone's use of xerox as a generic term,
any more than I worry about saying "Zipper brand clothing fastener"
or "Aspirin brand analgesic."

What next, "Post-It brand slightly adhesive notepaper"?

And by the way, there are places where they "Hoover" a carpet.

And "fridge" was once short for "Frigidaire."
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: jimt@carson.u.washington.edu (James Thompson)
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore newsgroup and Voter Tests
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:41:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.172350.29118@walter.cray.com> sonic@bearpit.cray.com (Curtis Swanson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov1.233246.14053@news.nd.edu>,
>smaurer@artin.helios.nd.edu (sean maurer) writes:
>|>
>|>Concerning the idea of voter tests to determine their fitness to vote:
>|>This seems to me to be contrary to most of the ideals of this country.  For 
>|>instance, suppose to me the national debt is the only issue I care about and
>|>I believe Joe Candidate is best to fix that problem. Why should I have
>to know
>|>anything about candidates positions on nuclear tests to vote on the one issue
>|>I care about?  Sometimes the only way to vote on an issue is to vote for a  
>|>candidate who suuports your side of that issue.  Taking away this means of 
>|>self government would do more harm than good.
>
>I don't think that you can solve any problem without affecting many other 
>issues/programs.  I think that you have to look at the entire range to make
>sure that the overall effect is good.

I disagree.  Some of the candidates I rejected, I did so without knowing their
views on a great many subjects.  Any single view that I strongly disagree with
is sufficient grounds for rejection.  I don't need to know anything more about
a candidate, for example, after he says something like "In the wise words of
Lyndon LaRouche..."

Jim
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: t: Moral Kiosk
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:15:02 GMT
Followup-To: rec.org.mensa

In article <1992Nov11.164234.25294@ncsu.edu>, scott@bogus.network.address
(Scott Tai) wrote:

> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
> : When the author of a message has a history of falsification and lies, the
> : message should be judged by its author as well as by its contents.  When
> : the author of a message makes himself the subject of criticism, then
> : criticism of him is not out of order.
> 
> How can you deliberately get up such paltry falsehoods?  I have been so
> far forbearing with you, sir; not that I was ignorant of your miserable,
> degraded character, but I felt you were only partly responsible for
> that; and some of the others on rec.org.mensa wishing to keep up your
> acquaintance, I acquiesced--foolishly.  Your presence on r.o.m is a 
> moral poison that would contaminate the most virtuous.

Sigh, and I thought that you were recovering so nicely; then we see the
above evidence of a relapse.  Well, one can only hope that the relapse is
just a temporary setback in your road to recovery.  Hurry up and get well
soon.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Now that I have a reader that can do .sigs, I can't think of a witty |
|one to put here, so I won't.  All normal disclaimers apply.          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: Re: Xerox of GMAT score OK for admission?
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:33:00 GMT


>Sure.  Because you can't get in with a GMAT score.  Correct me if things

The official info I have, after writing a letter to Mensa, is
that Mensa accepts GMAT scores.  You must score at the 95 percentile
in relation to the GMAT-taking group.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com ("Johnson")
Subject: Re: New Insight on Headaches
Reply-To: johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Wireless Enterprises, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:44:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.213122.24845@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
=)In article <1992Nov2.142452.150@nntpd.school.edu> dave@school.edu writes:
=)>AP 11/05 20:51 EST V0386
=)>Copyright 1992. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
=)>   LONDON (AP) -- "Not tonight honey, I'll get a headache" is more than an
=)>excuse for people who truly suffer from sex-induced headaches, doctors say.
=)>
=)>   A new Danish study reassures those who get headaches only after orgasms that
=)>they may have a temporary problem. 
=)
=)I imagine this may be caused by having sex with ugly people.
=)
=)GMS
Or, in some cases, it may be due not to the sex itself but the hangover.
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Johnson"                              |Just because you're paranoid doesn't|
| johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com |   mean they're not out to get you. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Let's face it; if our lawyers knew what went on here, they'd shut us down.  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu
Subject: Re: RESULTS TAI STANDARD Beastly to beast
Organization: OSU College of Osteopathic Medicine
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:57:00 GMT


In article <1992Nov5.031100.27122@ncsu.edu>, scott@bogus.network.address (Scott Tai) writes:
> 
> ..    stuff deleted
> 
> Next, four readability tests were applied to the
> files for each user.  Higher scores indicate
> longer words and sentences, among other things.
> The correlation between higher scores and higher
> intelligence is likely to be quite high.
> ..
> 
> userid	Kincaid	Auto Colemn* Flesch
> ------	------- ---- ------- ------
> 

> chorley 	 13.8   15.6    8.8   10.9

> ecsd	 	 10.5   10.4    7.4    8.7

How delightful! I seem to have edged out the great beast 664 in the brain box
stakes.

I am afraid that your analysis depends on the conceit that verbosity is
analogous to intelligence. I was taught that brevity was the soul of wit.
But then again most people on internet don't like my humour....
	I, having lived in the U.S.A. for eleven years, am of the opinion that
the American variant of the English language is more verbose in its written
form. Much of that, I am sure, is due to television, the remainder to liberal
arts colleges. If that is true, then whatever these tests compare, I am either
at a disadvantage, or because simplicity of thought in a sentence makes for
better communication, I have an unfair advantage. I submit that you were not
making an accurate comparison owing to my cultural background.
	There is one exception to Americans being more verbose than the
English, that is in the case of elected union officials.
If you were to run your analyses on elected union officials in England, my
hypothesis is that they would prove to be the most intelligent creatures on the
planet... but that would contradict other compelling evidence...

As an aside, don't you think ecsd's stats were somewhat skewed by his
insistence on putting  "F*** Y**" every two or three words?

I still believe you are a figment of a group imagination somewhere, but I have
ceased to care.
_______________________________________________________________________________

"There are lies, there are damned lies and there are statistics"
							Sam Clemens
_______________________________________________________________________________

Dr Strabismus of Utrecht (whom God preserve) shall look into it (sideways)

DNC

	
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Subject: Re: Voting Analysis
Reply-To: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:49:19 GMT

In article <mike_steiner-101192123813@192.35.50.131>,
mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:

>The fact remains that if a statistically significant number of people do
>not vote, the only thing that can be determined from this fact alone is
>that x% of the people (or stated number of people) did not vote.

How can you state that is a fact when I have given a counterexample that
disproves it?  You have not addressed the counterexample at all.

>This reason is so prevelant that it drowns
>out any other "message" any individual might want to send by not voting,

Ah, yes, the "drowns out" principle of information theory.  I'm sure
that was an epiphany of scientific insight, but I seemed to have missed
the announcement.  Would you be so kind as to give me a reference to
some published work on "drowning out" messages so that I can study it?

>and is the only one considered by politicians and the press.

The politicians and the press are not the only people who participate in
and affect government and society.


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@rusure.enet.dec.com
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: IQ Test Creation Question
Date: 10 Nov 92 04:27:42 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <01GQY9XQARO28Y5PMR@ccfvx3.draper.com>, Kjeld Hvatum writes:

> Incidentally, some of MVS's astronomical Stanford-Binet IQ of 228 was
> due to an age multiplier.  I believe she got a perfect score on the
> adult version of the test at age 10.  But she didn't do too bad on the
> Mega Test a few years ago either - 46 our of 48.

What other tests has she taken?  One when she was 10 and an untimed
unsupervised test?
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Marylin Vos Savant. Personal info request <=****
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 19:10:12 CST
Distribution: world
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

rr@chem.ucsd.edu (Roxanne Rohmann) writes:

> In article <647@nate.UUCP> nate!ken@cs.rit.edu writes:
>  > bwbrock@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Benjamin Warre Brock) writes:
>  > [...]
>  > >BTW I would be suprised if Vos Savant was her original last name.
>  > 
>  > Actually, I think her entire name is Marylin(sp?) Mach Vos Savant Jarvik.
>  > Mach was either her mother or her father's name.  I forget where Vos Savan
>  > came from. A previous marriage?
>  > KG.
>  > 
> 
> Vos Savant was her mother's maiden name.
> 
>    ---Roxanne Rohmann, San Diego Mensa
> 


Roxanne,

        Can you or anyone tell me (us) why she is NOT on the net?  
I have found that computers ATTRACT the academically adept- and 
from that spawns the exploration of the nets.  I am quite a 
junkie of the nets- and have never happened across Marylin Vos 
Savant.  Could this be possible?  Could it be she is ignorant of 
this medium?  I find that highly unlikely.  So far nobody has said 
anything about where we may find network access for her.  I have 
searched CIS, GEnie and Internet without luck.  Any suggestions?

        There are a LOT of famous people to be found on CIS, some 
on both CIS and GEnie, and a bunch on the Internet.  Today almost 
everyone can have an internet address- it is strange that we have 
not seen anything on usenet that was posted by her............sq

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: johnh@tigger.rl.af.mil (John Hawthorne)
Subject: Re: ecsd: The Social Terrorist Strikes Again.- Grohol, Wiegand, Steiner ...
Organization: Rome Laboratory, Network Design Facility
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:37:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.132846.20176@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>John Grohol writes:
>; I find that a KILL file works very well in ignoring Scott Tai.
>
>; And, I believe that a warning should be inserted into the FAQ and
>; short instructions on how to KILL any post by Scott Tai easily.
>
>; I almost wish this group was moderated... Maybe it's time for a new
>; CFD!   ;-)

...

>Moderate, Schmoderate - *I* wouldn't be here if that happened.

I would -- I was happy to find this newsgroup the other day, thinking
that it must contain some interesting discussions.  A kill file for
Scott Tai would work fine if he were the only one posting this drivel,
but there are obviously others who enjoy similar games.

John Hawthorne

(flames by email please, I'm preparing to hit the 'U' key.)
From: ken@nate.UUCP (Ken Gacioch)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Xerox of GMAT score OK for admission?
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:37:41 GMT
Organization: HealthChex, Inc.


OOPS!
The last post, which looks like it was from Matt Crawford,
was actually from me. I forgot to take out "From:"  
Sorry, Matt.  Sorry, everyone, for the confusion.
Here it is again (Oh, joy!):
          
matt@severian.chi.il.us (Matt Crawford) writes:
>> BTW, and for the annoyance of one and all, "Xerox" is not a verb,
>> any more than you Kirby your carpet ...  Xerox is based here in
>> Rochester, NY, and spends multi dineri to try to keep from losing
>> its rights to its trademark.
>
>Ah, but that's *their* worry, and not mine.  I own no Xerox stock and
>won't lose any sleep over anyone's use of xerox as a generic term,
>any more than I worry about saying "Zipper brand clothing fastener"
>or "Aspirin brand analgesic."
>
>What next, "Post-It brand slightly adhesive notepaper"?
>
>And by the way, there are places where they "Hoover" a carpet.
>
>And "fridge" was once short for "Frigidaire."
>

And then gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
[All of the above, plus:]
>Actually, it's pretty easy to avoid posting incorrect information
>that can be checked in a dictionary.  Look up Xerox again.
>
>GM("Dictionary Man")S

Well, it looks like all those lawyers wasted their time,
then, doesn't it?  Tsk tsk, what a shame.

A reminder about a seemingly ignored piece of my original followup:
>Yeah, yeah, yeah, now someone's going to say that common usage makes it
>public property, and that's how language evolves, and all that.
>(Please, nobody start another endless stream of useless drivel)

Did I call that one, or what?

>Ah, but that's *their* worry, and not mine.
Nor mine.
You see, I don't particularly care. I was offering what might for some
be a different view, one to which I don't even subscibe.

  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  *  The opinions expressed here are not necessarily anyone's.   8 )  *
  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

KG.