From: wchenaul@cyclone.mitre.org (William W. Chenault)
Subject: Re: T/ Re: T: To All MENSA Members...
Followup-To: rec.org.mensa
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean, VA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:03:31 GMT

In article <14908@claris.com> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.025634.21211@ncsu.edu>, scott@ailab.ncsu.edu (Scott A Tai) writes:
>> 
>> 
>> In article <1992Jul28.200644.24124@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, edp@math.zko.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes:
>> |>>In article <1992Jul27.214609.12298@ncsu.edu> tai@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us writes:
>> |>
>> |>>     Personally, I have absolutely no doubt that blacks, Hispanics, 
>> |>>and other minorities are of equal intelligence, on average, to the 
>> |>>average white.  I do not want to accuse MENSA of racism here, but 
>> |>>how the hell do you explain these testing differences?  If you assert 
>> |>>that IQ and aptitude tests measure skills that are unrelated to 
>> |>>differences in education and social background (which is the position
>> |>>of all psychometric purists), you can come to only two logical 
>> |>>possibilities:
>> |>
>> |>You ignore my previous posting in which I explained there is a third
>> |>possibility, one backed not only by logic, but also, unlike your
>> |>postings, by data.
>> 
>> You want data?  You got it... see upcoming posts.
>
>Oh, oh.  Here come more lies & outdated and flawed "research."

	In a previous article, I wrote that I was new to the newsgroup
and wanted people to support the claims that they were making that Scott
Tai was a liar, a racist, etc. with quotes that he had said, and what 
source that contradicted.  Several people wrote back that he just kept
repeating the same old arguments that had been refuted time and time
again, I guess not bothering to keep specific examples of what apparently
is a continual barrage of such behavior.  After reading this group for
another week, I must agree with them completely.  Not only does he 
frequently bring up "flaws" with Mensa that contradict the reasoning he
used to point out other such "flaws" but he has yet to refute (to my
satisfaction) any of the counter points raised against his arguments.
I have read the lengthy and somewhat informative data he mentioned above,
but I still don't see it as supporting his arguments.  I also seem to
recall that most of the "genetic twins seperated at birth" studies were
based on one guy's research (don't recall the name) who had written up
all these case studies.  Other people then used his research or raw data
to draw their own conclusions too.  But I thought the guy who did the
research confessed a couple of years ago to making up a large portion of
it.  Maybe that's what Mike referred to as outdated? :-)  Does anyone else
recall this, or have any information about it (the name of the guy who faked
the research, for example)?  If not, I'll dig through my papers and see if
I can find out more, including whether the articles that Scott posted
yesterday were based on this research or whether or not my memory has
betrayed me and such an event never took place.

PS. I've decided to join Mensa despite Scott Tai.  Thanks to all the 
people who emailed to me or posted recommending this course of action.

Bill

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa