From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Etiquette - or lack thereof
Organization: The Great Beast 666 - Baphomet, this time
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:54:00 GMT

"Rodney Adams" <RADAMS@BNR.CA> writes:
>ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) 
>commits the one unspoken sin among high-IQ societies:
>|> Sorry. Personal experience, in comparison with observations of others,
>|> says I Am More Intelligent Than Average. I think Stanford-Binet gives me
>|> IQ = 163.5 (Wechsler 141). 
>
>FYI, Stanford-Binet 164 IQ = Wechsler 160 IQ, which is at the 4-sigma level
>(99.997 percentile).  Wechsler 141 IQ = Stanford-Binet 144 IQ, which is at
>the 99.7 percentile (2.74 sigma).

*argh*.
Hmm.
Psyche suggests & I agree, we believe we are destined to be famous, but at
a significant cost (which I am thankfully equipped to bear:) I must do
*everything* openly and nakedly and transparently. So that has "outted" -
sorry. Umm - at risk of offending, my penis reaches maximum length of 7.5
inches if I try *really hard*, but still this is not enough since the tastiest
swinger's ads usually want "hung, 8+" - *groan*.

Meanwhile, I am curious - if the SB versus W scores mismatch in the way you
suggest (if SB is so high, why is W so low, if SB 164 = W 160) -
Maybe you can tell me if there are qualitative differences in what the tests
exactly measure, or how they go about doing it. These tests were taken in
1972.

No, I have a body & intend to display that; I like sex, and at least think
about making a porno video, because I would like to show something other than
"roll over & I'll stick it in & pull it out & come on your back" type films.
Feminist porn, showing real people having real sex where the act per se is
not the big draw. But the relationship between the people, and how it is
a holistic thing and not "nasty" or giving titters. Yukko.

The stats are better than I thought. In depressed ego moments I sometimes
tried to determine how many people lay at the level my IQ indicated, the
books all gave up on the normal curve before getting to my position and I
hate numerical methods so I said to hell with it.

By now I have to have put those things behind me - my debts probably outweigh
my gifts and I have a lot of work to do. The stuff is just equipment to do
certain important social things. I *can* write my way out of a paper bag when
I try, if it's not too heavyweight :)

I dream of contributing significantly toward getting machines to *understand*
English, but this will come later if at all.

When we are all naked, we are all equal, because we are all human. Let the
best and brightest and highest and most attained of us lead the way, perhaps,
but they suffer isolation in finding compatible partners. Not fun.

That's why there's Mensa.

Even a moron can play good chess, so IQ is not an indicator of a whole lot.
I know too many people who do too many things far better than I can or could
ever hope to, to get arrogant about very much except being real good at being
me. And I don't think I do it very well yet! So I cling to the few things
they can't take away from me.

So, one doesn't discuss one's IQ, for the same reason one doesn't openly
breeze genital statistics, for the same reason a male should not innocently
drop a jesting remark such as "So, is she good-looking?" into local e-mail
reaching about 102 people - ? Do I have this right? I did the 'good-looking'
thing, and a flame sent to the same 102 people has very indirectly brought
me here.

I seem hell-bent on reenacting a few Jesus things (call the Social Cops down
on me & get crucified) except I intend to get away with it, being so
innocent and all. *This time*, *this time* I will get away with it.
(No, I don't claim to have been Jesus in a former life. -but, my middle
name is Christopher, and occult life that I have, I have had to consider
why I have the name.)

More incomprehensible rambling later. Thanks for the info.
Yrs Truly, the next Hunter S. Thompson,
-ecsd
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa