HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 19:51:00 GMT


>From: Eric Roberts <roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca>
>Message-ID: <1993Jan1.233018.29408@julian.uwo.ca>
>
>In article <01GT0EOK4XR6ADC1GC@ccfvx3.draper.com> skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld
> Hvatum) writes:
>>And vocabulary is one of the best single indicators of intelligence,
>>according to a number of studies.  Some IQ tests are 100% vocabulary
>>tests, including some of the tests Terman used in his famous
>>longitudinal IQ study.  One frequently cited reason is that a person's
>
>Maybe they are a good measure of IQ, nonentheless, how that number
>relates to ability of any kind remains to be seen.

Vocabulary correlates fairly well with a range of other abilities.
That's a fact, even if it's not clear why.

>>vocabulary is an indirect measure of the ability to learn new meanings
>>in context.
>
>I don't agree.

Fair enough, but you should know you're disagreeing with some of
the foremost researchers of human intelligence today.

>Just because a person knows the word VIRULENT does
>not make him more intelligent.

Yeah, but, as I'm sure you realize, it's a sampling test.  If the SAT
vocab pool consists of 60,000 words, each of the 15 sample words is
worth 4,000 words in the estimate, not just one word.

>The vocabulary of the English language
>is too large for any single person to know a significant portion
>of it.  Someone may not know the words on the exam and still have
>a vocabulary 50x larger than another person that does.

That's very unlikely because the SAT tests only fairly commonly used
words, leaving out only the kind of words which you obviously know if
you were able to read the instructions on the test.  In fact, I found
about half of the 15 words (the SAT words I listed in a recent post) in
a dictionary for grades 3-6, containing a total of 36,000 entries.  So,
what you're saying is that someone might have a vocabulary of 1 million
words, yet know virtually none of the words in a grade school
dictionary??

I think you have a point if you're talking about trying to score near
800 on the verbal SAT.   That requires a virtually perfect command of
the SAT vocabulary pool.  I just think it's very unlikely that someone
could have a very large vocabulary above the SAT range without a
reasonably good coverage within the SAT range.

>In addition
>to this, little intelligence in neccesary to memorize words.

The same could be said of each of the many other skills which
add up to what we think of as intelligence.

>The fact that a person is capable to finding a few antonyms, does not
>, in the least degree, indicate that the person is capable of logical
>reasoning of any kind. It may just indicate that he is a walkind
>dictionary (or usually not even that much).

Exactly.  It *may* indicate that, but usually it doesn't.
That's what a less-then-perfect correlation means.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts)
Subject: Re: IQ Test Creation Question
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:48:22 GMT

In article <92357.125328FDMWINK@UCF1VM.BITNET> <FDMWINK@UCF1VM.BITNET> writes:
>In article <01GSL9H5I9NMADCKNQ@ccfvx3.draper.com>, skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld
>Hvatum) says:
>>
>>>From: larry wink <bbs-phaedrus%jwt.uucp@surname.draper.com>
>>>Message-ID: <DVoJuB1w164w@jwt.UUCP>
>>>
>>>Once full maturity is reached, long term study may well improve on the scores
>>>achieved on tests, but will not, IMHO, result in increased intelligence.

You are assuming that those tests measure intelligence in the first place.
 
>>
>>I can't argue with you - you've made your statement true by
>>definition.
>
>Well, I just glad that you've _finally_ seen the light. Anything is better than
>wasting time talking about Howard Stern.
>
> --Larry Wink
> Internet: fdmwink@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu or ljw@pro-magic.oau.org
> Bitnet: fdmwink@ucf1vm     Usenet: bbs-phaedrus@jwt.UUCP     GEnie: l.wink


Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: pamela@sscux1.ssc.gov (pamela gurd)
Subject: Re: Sick and tired of cries of sexism (was Re: 9 1/2 Weeks)
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:49:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.161555.23802@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.045622.12559@psych.toronto.edu> anna@psych.toronto.edu (Anna Filippone) writes:
>>In article <92364.185826U23700@uicvm.uic.edu> <U23700@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>>although research has been done that shows that men have a greater
>>There was no significant difference found in the abilities of girls and boys
>>in math up until the age of 11.  After that point there was an advantage on
>
>I wonder if the types of math studied at different ages had an effect.
>

I heard (from a rather feminist friend, I must admit) of a study of the
growth of brain connections that showed that girls' brains matured a
few years earlier than boys' brains.  In particular, that parts of
the brain which carry out higher mathematical functions are maturing
in boys at the same age as these things are taught in schools - but
girls, not having the appropriate training at the appropriate time,
were less capable of learning such things.  Seemed plausible at the
time...

Pam.

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa,soc.culture.jewish,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: waldo@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Todd J. Dicker)
Subject: Re: Re^6: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:12:23 GMT

mitch@novavax.UUCP (Mitch Silverman) writes:

> I must disagree with you, however, about the avowed intention of
> the Reform and Conservative liturgy--the Reform liturgy
> especially is *excruciatingly* clear, in its English component,
> in prayers that glorify and ask for the intercession (directly or
> indirectly) of an omnipotent, male deity in the lives of the
> congregation members. This may indeed be "merely" the literal
> meaning of the prayers, and the "sub-structure and essence of the
> prayers" may well be more important--that's how I feel, at any
> rate.  The liturgy, however, does *not* reflect this
> deconstructed importance in any obvious way-- unlike the
> Reconstructionist liturgy.

I try to look beyond the literal meaning of the prayer.  "Blessed are
You, raiser of the dead," is not taken any more literally than prayers 
asking for rain.  The phrases we add during the winter to bring rain 
perform an important function in attuning ourselves to the cycle of 
nature, to contemplating the frailty of life and our need for life 
sustaining processes, and bring our thoughts to Israel where the rain is 
supposed to fall.  We don't really expect that it will rain because we 
added the phrases, but it is the EFFECT of saying the phrases that shapes 
our mind and spirit while we pray.
>  
> Now, about this siddur of yours....

Sure.  It was compiled by eliminating the English translation of the 
prayer service found in most siddurs and replacing it with a compendium 
of sources on tefillah.  Approximately forty sources of knowledge on the 
liturgy is used, and the information is presented alongside the prayer so 
that study can accompany your prayer, and you can get a deeper 
understanding of the prayers you are saying.  It was compiled by myself 
for Camp Ramah in Conover Wisconsin, a Hebrew speaking religious camp run 
by the Conservative movement.  You should be able to get a copy through 
them, however they aren't open until next June.  I have a draft that 
doesn't have the nice typesetting and well laid-out pages, but I can be 
convinced to send a copy or have one made at an area copy shop (since 
you're down the street).
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: kkirksey@world.std.com (Ken B Kirksey)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 02:35:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.092545.16601@eng.umd.edu> tedwards@eng.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards) writes:
>In article <o7H2VB2w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
>>        I stand on my own in this world, but do require the 
>>support of other fellow humans- not deities.  I am an atheist, and 
>>I am in a great minority.
>
>I'd like to add that there is nothing wrong with developing 
>a sense of spirituality while remaining an atheist.  I enjoy
>Wiccan circles, catholic masses, technopagan rituals, etc.
>I know the spirituality I experience is metaphorical and
>not part of the reality which science reveals.
>
>I used to be a very "violent atheist," being totally 
>unaccepting of any kind of spirituality as "stupid."
>I found that this stance really began to dehumanize me.
>
>I realize now that like the illusion of love, the illusion of
>spirituality is a key part of our humanity, and I revel in it,
>but continue to keep touch with reality.

If by "reality" you mean the world as revealed by our senses and studied
by science you might want to go back and read Plato and Spinoza.
 
 
                         Ken


-- 
+----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Ken Kirksey                | "A man cannot be too careful in his choice     |
| kkirksey@world.std.com     |  of enemies."                                  |
| The World, Brookline, MA   |                - Oscar Wilde                   |
From: Linda.Cunningham@p811.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Linda Cunningham)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Favorite Beverages
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 08:02:10 -0500

  SP> From: sderby@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Stuart P. Derby)
  SP> In article <Dec.20.08.30.16.1992.5200@remus.rutgers.edu>
  SP> clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:

  > To get off the other subjects:

  SP> At last, a topic I understand!! :-)

Me, too!  :-)

Moet & Chandon Brut Imperial at 40 deg. F
Laphroaig, neat, in a brandy snifter
peppermint and vervain tea, hot
homemade blackberry brandy with hot Russian Caravan tea on the side
McNally's Extra Ale (Big Rock Brewery, Calgary, AB, Canada), draft

Linda
From: jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Mensa abroad--Germny?
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:32:13 GMT
Organization: The E-mail Synopsys Users Group (ESNUG)

In article <C04Mq4.5FK.1@cs.cmu.edu> dell+@cs.cmu.edu (Dellera) writes:
>
>
>I have been living abroad for a while, and am interested in re-joining
>Mensa.  Does anybody know if the group is active in Germany?  I don't 
>have an up-to-date directory with names and addresses of international 
>group contacts.
>
>I'd welcome mail (for the next week or so--home for christmas) from anyone
>with thoughts or experience to share about Mensa abroad. 
>
>--Kim Dellera
>  (dell@koz.garnet.cs.cmu.edu)

Kim,

There's quite an active Mensa group auf Deutchland I've heard.  They're
mostly in the 20 to 30 year old range because it was just formed something
like 10 years ago.  (They recruited heavily amoungst the universities.)

I know some of the people in German Mensa but also have a friend who knows
quite a few of them; if you want I can put you in touch with them.

Q:Are you planning on moving to Germany?  Carnagie Mellon, last I knew,
was based in Pittsburg....

                                         - John Cooley
                                           LocSec, Boston Mensa


 ===========================================================================
 Trapped trying to figure out a Synopsys bug?  Want to hear how others dealt
 with it ?  Join the E-Mail Synopsys Users Group!  To join, E-mail me today! 
 ===========================================================================
      !!!     "It's not a BUG,    | Preferred Address: jcooley@world.std.com
     /o o\  /  it's a FEATURE!"   |    Backup Address: jcooley@miracle.com
    (  >  )                       |              (508) 429-4357
     \ - /       |   Snail Mail: P.O. Box 6222, Holliston, MA 01746-6222
     _] [_       |     "This here ain't no one's opinion 'cept my own."
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: midnight/noon AM/PM?
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:34:35 GMT
Organization: Circle 'C' Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, California

In article <01GSCK3O3Y1K9VXMSF@ccfvx3.draper.com> skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:
>
>>From: Roger Tipley <tipley@solo.eng.hou.compaq.com>
>
>>We all agree which day the times 23:59:59.9 and 00:00:00.1 belong
>>to (the first is obviously P.M. of one day and the second is A.M.
>>of the next day).  The argument is about which day the instant of
>>midnight (24:00:00.000..) would be associated with.

One answer would be: 24:00:00.000 is in the PM while 00:00:00.000 is AM ;-)

>The practical answer is that digital clocks switch the day when they
>roll over all the digits.  Since digital clocks usually don't display
>fractions of a second, 12:00:00 a.m. is what they display for the whole
>first second of the new day.  It would be awkward to switch the day one
>second after the new day had started.
>
>If you want to split mathematical hairs, argue about how it's
>possible for 11:59:59.99999... p.m. of the old day and
>12:00:00.00000... a.m. of the new day to be the same.  :-)

I think I've answered that above 8-} 

Live life on the edge, but watch out for sharp cusps ...
-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: paco@cs.rice.edu (Paul Havlak)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Reply-To: Paul Havlak <paco@cs.rice.edu>
Organization: Center for Research on Parallel Computation
	<1992Dec28.161717.12506@cbnewse.cb.att.com> <C020Jw.EJG@world.std.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:32:08 GMT

> kkirksey@world.std.com (Ken B Kirksey) writes:
>Then you must consider the fact that science, by definition, is limited
>to nature.  It cannot say anything about anything residing outside of 
>nature.  ...
>...
>I look at it like this:  science's realm is a closed sphere, and science 
>resides inside the sphere.  Science can discover and explain everything
>inside the sphere, but beyond the boundary, it knows naught.  The sphere
>is large, but it does not extend all the way to the beginning of time,
>nor all the way to the end (e.g. Medawar's first and last things).
>Science is useless in PROVING something happened in the past, since the
>scientific method is, by definition, here and now observation and 
>replication.  Likewise, science cannot see to the end of time and PROVE what
>will happen there.  
>...

    As far as I'm concerned, *nothing* can be absolutely proven -- I
don't mean that truth doesn't exist, but that fallible humans cannot
know it.  However, sufficient evidence can convince me of a
proposition until I'm presented with contradictory evidence.
    My own definition of science resembles that published by Karl
Popper, whom I'll paraphrase:

	Science is the process of proposing falsifiable theorems --
	which are testable in that they predict observable but
	previously unnoticed phenomena -- and of testing those
	theorems against observed reality.  (Such testing may require
	the use of other theorems about how to observe reality.)

	Scientific knowledge is the body of theorems which have, thus
	far, withstood rigorous testing.  No such theorem can be
	considered "true"; however, the process of testing establishes
	scientific theorems as useful approximations of reality.

    By my (interpretation of Popper's) definition of science, nothing
observable is inherently excluded.  However, our ability to test
theorems, like our knowledge, is always finite and deficient in many
areas.  Furthermore, knowing how the world works (to an ever-improving
approximation) does not tell us why, nor does it tell us what we
should do.
    The "why" is a question of faith, of religion.  "What should we
do?" -- the question of ethics -- derives its answers both from faith
and from science (after all, ethical behavior requires predicting the
consequences of our actions).
    I don't think that "intelligence" -- which I'll interpret as the
ability to solve novel problems -- should drive people to atheism.
But it should drive people to an appreciation of science, and to an
ethical system with few axioms taken on faith and with a relatively
deep understanding of cause and effect.

--paco (not a mensan)
--
Paul Havlak			Dept. of Computer Science
Graduate Student		Rice University, Houston TX 77251-1892
PFC/ParaScope projects		(713) 527-8101 x2738 	paco@cs.rice.edu
From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 11:40:18 CST
Distribution: world
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

pamela@sscux1.ssc.gov (pamela gurd) writes:

> 	It seems to me that the strongest proof of the non-existence
> of God is the lack of obvious moral difference between religious
> people and others.  Some of the most moral and compassionate people
> I know are atheists.
> 

Pam,

        One of the reasons why `god heads' tend to show no morals 
or compassion is simply because they can do no wrong and suffer no 
guilt.  You see, it is my understanding that these people will do 
wrong, then pray for forgivness- which since god is something 
created in the mind, they get forgiven (they get what ever they 
want).

        Atheists on the other hand have to bear their own guilt 
for YEARS after they commit a `sin'.  This pain is reason enough 
why atheists are compassionate and morally sound.  We carry our 
own crosses- nobody died for our sins, we are alone to feel guilt 
and shame.

        I am an atheist, and I am compassionate.  I gave up my 
career to work in a semi-voluntary fashion for science research 
and education.  I make very little money- but I better mankind.

        My ex-soulmate was a believer.  She cheated on me and is 
now living with her boss- soon to be married to him.  She took 
from me, and left me alone.  How could a person do this to another 
person?  She prayed for forgiveness and was granted.  I could 
never do this to someone who loved me- because I would have to 
forgive myself, and a wrongful act is still wrong...........sq

(atheism means to transfix god to self.  The need is still there, 
and the "deity" if you will is still there, it simply becomes you 
and not something "out there".  Since we become our own gods, we 
must live up to our own expectations.  We must also forgive 
ourselves, something that is very hard to do when your cross your 
own moral barriers.  Theists do cross the line often, because they 
can cry on sunday and god will relieve them of all the guilt.  
Call it psychotherapy if you will- it DOES work, and it is a bad 
practice.  Atheists do more good in this world, believe me.....)
From: eab@msc.edu (Edward Bertsch)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Favorite Beverages
Date: 23 Dec 92 14:27:57 GMT
Organization: Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Minneapolis, MN

Someone mentioned Jolt Cola, and I had to share some information I
recently obtained:

Beverage			mg Caffeine/12 oz

Dr Pepper			40.8

Mt. Dew, Diet Mt. Dew		54
Pepsi				38

Coke, Diet Coke, Cherry Coke	46


I got the Dr. Pepper info from their toll free info # - 1-800-441-1539

Pepsi info from their's - 1-800-433-cola

Coke info from - 1-800-get-coke

I believe you're out of luck with these #s if you're not in the U.S. of A,
although they might work in our northern most state, Canada.

--

Edward A. Bertsch (eab@msc.edu)   Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Inc.
Operations/User Services          1200 Washington Avenue South
(612) 626-1888 work               Minneapolis, Minnesota  55415
(612) 645-0168 voice mail         [DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS; NOT MSCI'S]
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: Re: Mensa - FAQ: What other high-IO societies are there?
 [Bi-Weekly]
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 12:21:00 GMT


>From: Paul Havlak <paco@cs.rice.edu>
>Message-ID: <PACO.92Dec30152157@legia.cs.rice.edu>
>
>Does anyone have a table relating test scores to percentile rankings
>above or below that required for Mensa?  For example, what are the
>rankings corresponding to GRE scores of 1400, 1500, 1600?

Approximate general population percentiles for GRE scores:

GRE(V+Q)    Percentile
--------    ----------
 1300           99
 1400           99.7
 1500           99.9
 1600           99.99
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Membership Decision
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:15:12 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1h8v7jINNdmj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bl275@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dan Diaz) writes:
>
>In a previous article, wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) says:
>>
>>To be fair, I must say up front that I've never attended any MENSA
>>gatherings, local or otherwise.  My work and travel schedules have made
>>
>>Finally, my leaving is based more on apathy than anything else.  I just
>
>Enough said.  Garbage in, garbage out.

On reflection, Dan, you might realize this was uncalled for.

GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:08:16 GMT

In article <heflin.725644567@cherokee30> heflin@rtsg.mot.com (Suzanne Stratton Heflin) writes:
>quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
>
>>        I stand on my own in this world, but do require the 
>>support of other fellow humans- not deities.  I am an atheist, and 
>>I am in a great minority.
>
>>        I want to point out at this point that just because one 
>>has a high IQ does not mean that they are logical in thought.  
>>True logic discounts the existence of god, but not everyone 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Really?  Can you discuss the "pure and true logic" that you used
>to make this statement?

I agree with you that there is no logic that can prove or disprove it,
only that given a set of facts, it may be proven or disproven to a
level of probability to a person's personal satisfaction.
>
>>(common thread amongst believers- they are often poor and 
>>uneducated.  The greater their poverty and lack of education the 
>>more likely they will become devoutly religious.  All people fall 
>>between these rails, of devout believers and atheists- and a scale 
>>`could' be drawn to show relation......)
>
>What a stereotype!  And please make a difference in your bigoted
>comments between "devout believers" and "devoutly religious."  They
>are not the same at all!

You're overreacting, and whatever your personal views or the personal
views of the original poster, the fact is that atheism and agnosticism
is positively correlated with economic level.  Make of that what you
will, as there are lots of theories espoused about it.  Maybe wealth
is evil, and maybe that's why I'm so nice :-).

GMS

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa