HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: IQ Test Creation Question
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:54:39 GMT

In article <H3N5TB1w164w@jwt.UUCP> bbs-phaedrus@jwt.UUCP writes:
>
>hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
>
>>In article <4125@bcstec.ca.boeing.com> stein@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Halden
>>Stein) writes:
>>}I understand how someone with an IQ greater than mine can develop
>>}test items to judge my abilities. Who creates the test for someone
>>}such as Marylin Vos Savant (highest IQ at the moment)? It seems that
>>}the test creators would need to have higher IQs than the test takers.
>
>>I question your basic assumption.  By analogy, while not an Olympic class
>>marksman myself, I'm certainly qualified to judge such a competition and
>>even to train Olympic competitors.
>
>I question your basic analogy.  An operational definition of a bulls-eye 

Actually, for an analogy of a skill being tested by someone less competent
than the testee, it succeeds.

>exists, so anyone can determine if a given competitor achieved the objective.  
>There is no such operational definition of intelligence.

I think you are trying to say, "Objective definition", since there are
obviously "operational" definitions, since this is what they currently
use.  You may argue their validity, but they do exist.  Further, IQ testers,
at least those that are psychologists, are trained to perform the test
in a very objective and consistent way to minimize bias and variance.
This may be a complicated process, but in no way am I convinced that it
requires great intelligence.
>
>Having been educated in the physical sciences (physics, if it matters), I have 
>always found it amusing that those in the social sciences have no concept of 
>operational definitions.  The common thread in this newsgroup appears to 

No!  Someone with "no concept"?  I don't believe it!

>mirror the social sciences perfectly.  Everyone talks about intelligence, 
>admits they can't even produce a good conceptual definition, and then proceeds 
>to argue the merits of different testing techniques.  Take a hint - when 

Because they are voicing their opinions.  They may not be presenting them
as such in every post, but like any complex problem, people have opinions
as to the "right" way to approach it.

>intelligent is properly defined, the definition will naturally include the 
>method by which intelligence can be measured.  Standardized IQ tests measure 
>standardized IQs (the social science's circle jerk) and have very little to do 
>with measuring intelligence (and yes, I am a Mensan and have rarely scored 
>less than 4 sigma on these standardized pieces of trash).

No one has asked, but thanks for sharing.

>As to the less intelligent testing the intelligent, I find my patience well 
>tested by discussions in this newsgroup.

Perhaps you are Patience Challenged, Larry.  I think we all know that if
you are, the net is no place to take your ulcer.

GMS
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: More usefull dialogue about Canadian activities and other topics.
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:31:11 GMT
Followup-To: rec.org.mensa

In article <BxHuqo.46B@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>,
chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (The Technicolour Throw-up) wrote:
> 
> From article <mike_steiner-301092144549@192.35.50.131>, by mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner):
> > You received a reply from someone who is not a Mensan, and who had a
> > humorous signature.  I replied to that signature with a humorous message. 
> > That, in turn, elicited a flame.
> 
> Well here's a funny thing mike - people's taste in humour vary quite a lot.
> You replied to Steve's signature with a message you thought funny.   I
> personally thought it wasn't terribly funny.  Many people in this group no
> doubt also thought it funny (like you) and no doubt there were many others
> (like myself) who didn't think it funny.  When I saw your reply I was a
> little puzzled as to it.  It didn't look funny to me so, given your history
> of flaming, I took it that, for reasons unknown, you had decided to flame
> Steve.  Apparently, as you now explain, it wasn't a flame - but thats what it
> looked like to me (and probably to many others as well).  Does it not strike
> you as possible that Steve may perhaps have a different sense of humour from
> you and, like me, had come to the conclusion that you had flamed him and that
> he therefore replied in kind?

What I did not know at the time is that Franklin has a history of flitting
from newsgroup to newsgroup to bait and flame people.  If I had known that
at the time, I would not have bothered.

Speaking of my "history of flaming," keep in mind that I do not initiate
flames; I respond to them in kind.  Since Franklin's message (the one to
which I initially repsonded) was not a flame, that should have tipped you
off that my message was not a flame.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|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: scott@bogus.net.address (The Great Brain)
Subject: t: social rejection
Reply-To: scott@bogus.net.address (The Great Brain)
Organization: /dev/null
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:04:23 GMT


mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
: 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.

Could you believe in the existence of such a colossal dunce?  You
will be good enough to understand that I reject any pretense at
kindness you have the hypocrisy to offer!  I will have nothing to
say to you!

--Scott Andrew Tai


Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Boycotting the Vote
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:06:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.150527.1931@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes...
>In article <mike_steiner-211092120408@192.35.50.131>,
>mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:

>>It will?  The World Almanac has listings of how many people voted for which
>>candidates in the last presidential election; "none of the above" was
>>listed as having received votes.  My copy is at home, so I don't have
>>access to it here; otherwise I'd quote from it.

>I will quote from it; the World Almanac says "None of the above         
>(Nevada option)".  What you suggest does not happen in other states.

Write-ins are counted and tabulated separately in Massachusetts, and the
results of votes, including write-ins, is public information.  Any write-ins of
"None of the above" will be counted and made available to anyone interested
enough to look it up.

It may be that the World Almanac simply doesn't bother to include write-ins.
I think the "None of the above" in Nevada is actually on the ballot.

-Mike
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: bbs-phaedrus@jwt.UUCP (larry wink)
Subject: New members
Reply-To: bbs-phaedrus@jwt.UUCP
Organization: The Matrix
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 22:26:49 GMT

Re: More useful dialogue and a bit of information

For those inquiring about discounts for students and the military, this from the invitation letter from American Mensa Ltd. which I happen to receive 
today:

     Mensa offers a 50% dues reduction to full-time students under age 24,
     or enlisted members of Armed Forces through rank E5.

BTW, I can sympathize with the New York member looking for information about 
local activities.  You see, my invitation package contained a lovely letter to 
someone else (I can only assume that he received mine ... unless we have a 
daisy chain in progress), informing him of his local secretary and group.  
Unfortunately, he lives in Scappoose, Oregon and I live in Orlando, FL so I 
imagine our participation in local activities will have to wait until we 
straighten this out.

ps   A note to Jerry Hollombe (hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)) who   
     writes:

     >However, don't judge the entire organization by what you see here.

It has been my experience that when first interacting with a new organization, 
a reliable method of determining how f***ed up it is, is to count the minutes 
until this phrase is used.  It is strictly an inverse relationship.

Does the exception prove (test) the rule?
From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: IQ Test Creation Question
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:52:43 GMT
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting

In article 2725@bnr.ca, radams@BNR.CA (Rodney Adams) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.075425.11655@eagercon.com>, eager@eagercon.com
>(Michael J. Eager) writes:
>|>You do not need superior intelligence to create questions.  IQ tests
>are a range
>|>of questions which are given within a specified time limit under very
>specific
>|>circumstances.  
>
>Not all IQ tests have "a specified time limit under very specific
>circumstances," 
>examples of which are ISPE's W87, Hoeflin's Mega and Titan Tests, and
>Langdon's 
>LAIT and LIGHT.  In particular, Hoeflin's tests and Langdon's LIGHT not only 
>lack a strict time limit, but they also allow the use of both reference
>materials 
>and, except for Titan, calculators.  All of the above tests are also
>unsupervised.


I don't know all of the tests you mention.  I do know that the LAIT is not
accepted by any organization other than Kevin Langdon's as a standard test.
It has not been standardised in any independent fashion, and the stats which
I saw (from Langdon some long time ago) on how he standardised it were fishy, 
in my opinion.  Kevin told me that the results "correlate well with his 
impression of a person's intelligence" which should be good enough for 
government work, or membership in 4Sigma.

Are any of the other tests accepted by any one other than their originators?

I will grant that it may be possible to create a test which measures 
intelligence without a time limit.  On the other hand, all of the descriptions
and definitions of intelligence which I have seen seem to have a component
of speed of understanding/solving/responding.


---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore newsgroup and Voter Tests
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:56:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewse.1992Nov6.155655.17458
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov5.214115.7361@u.washington.edu> jimt@carson.u.washington.edu (James Thompson) writes:
>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..."

So you're saying that if someone agrees with one statement a person has
said, then they are buying into that person's entire philosophy?  
"Mussolini said the trains should run on time, but Mussolini was a
Fascist, so..."

I see many people (okay, most people) thinking like this.

"I'm pro-life.  X is pro-life.  I'm for X."

"But X has no economic plan.  What if many children die because of
X wasting funds to the point of siphoning them off from medical care?"

"I don't care about economics.  I care about life.  Besides, that won't
happen.  And X can't screw up economics that badly."

"What if X can't affect the government's actions with regard to
abortion?"

"Oh, but X is pro-life!  And I'm pro-life.  So I'm for X."

And so it goes.

GM("Oh, But That's Different")S
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Geneticism and free will
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:29:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.171517.28960@walter.cray.com> sonic@bearpit.cray.com (Curtis Swanson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov1.014000.7874@ttinews.tti.com>,
>hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
>|>In article <1992Oct27.185105.24359@walter.cray.com> sonic@cray.com
>(Curtis L. Swanson) writes:
>|>}In article <1992Oct27.000825.6948@ttinews.tti.com> hollombe@polymath.tti.com
>|>}writes:
>|>
>|>[ Forgoing posts eliminated to save bandwidth ]
>|>
>|>}Hmmm.  By using your example above, there are no random systems because any
>|>}of them would appear at some point in pi.  Does that make all these points
>|>}moot?
>|>
>|>But where they appear in pi is unknowable except by expanding pi until you
>|>find them. 
>
>Yup.  To most people, this is as good as random because they have no way of
>calculating the following digits.  If you have the resources and time to find

Note that pi is not random, technically, but rather one of those weird
things called "pseudo-random".  Pseudorandom numbers have all of the
qualities of random numbers except that they are not random, and can be
generated by a known algorithm.  Digital testing of datapaths, for instance,
is often done by sending a pseudorandom number, usually generated by a
shift register and xor-ing two or more bits together to generate the next
bit.

Just a note.

GMS
From: ken@nate.UUCP (Ken Gacioch)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: How to get IQ tests
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:36:58 GMT
Reply-To: nate!ken@cs.rit.edu
Organization: HealthChex, Inc.

In article <1992Nov12.015040.25367@vela.acs.oakland.edu> jmwojtal@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Wojo) writes:
>I was wondering how a person can take an IQ test?
>
>I never took one in school, and I just wanted to know what my IQ is.  Do you go
>to a school and ask for one, or what.  Can anyone give me advice on getting one
>for me please?
>

If you went to public school in the US, you doubtless have taken several
"intelligence tests", and you might be able to get scores from a guidance
counselor at your alma mater.

If you're interested in how you might score *now*, you have several options:

  1. The most straightforward approach is to hire a psychologist or
     psychiatrist (former probably less expensive) to test you.

  2. If you're student, faculty, or staff at Oakland, ask at the counseling
     center.  They might provide such services cheaply, at cost, or even
     gratis.  At the least, they'll give you a referral.

  3. If you know anyone in the Psych department at a school somewhere,
     they or someone they know may be certified to administer such tests.
     Make a deal.

  4. If you're not a member of Mensa, call your local group (in the book).
     This is probably the cheapest non-free route at $25 for the proctored
     exam (actually 2 separate instruments).  You get the scores back from
     National in ~2 weeks.

Ken Gacioch
Proctor Coordinator
Rochester (NY) Area Mensa
nat!ken@cs.rit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: IQ Test Creation Question
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:23:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.040759.9910@u.washington.edu> jimt@carson.u.washington.edu (James Thompson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.151640.18918@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>>In article <4125@bcstec.ca.boeing.com> stein@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Halden Stein) writes:
>>>I understand how someone with an IQ greater than mine can develop
>>>test items to judge my abilities. Who creates the test for someone
>>>such as Marylin Vos Savant (highest IQ at the moment)? It seems that
>>>the test creators would need to have higher IQs than the test takers.
>>
>>I am told that MVS spent quite a lot of time studying various IQ tests
>>to improve her eventual score.  Assuming this is true, and, based upon
>>her written material, while not a dunce, she does not seem particularly
>>gifted at least verbally, it would not matter in her case how smart
>>the test makers were, since her goal would be to anticipate their
>>particular expectations, "right" or "wrong".
>>
>>In any case, I disagree with your assumption.
>>
>>GMS
>
>I have to disagree with the assumption as well -- otherwise, the smartest
>people in the world would be wasting their time by writing intelligence tests.
>However, I asked a question similar to this a couple months ago, and nobody
>picked it up.  Again:  How DO people test the intelligence (in a meaningful
>way) of those who are more intelligent than them?
>
>Jim


Why not devise a problem that takes you a certain amount of time to
complete and expect the "smarter" person to do it faster?

After all, IQ numbers, while somewhat in agreement across tests,
were originally arbitrary numbers for adults.  For children, it's
okay to say that a kid scoring at the fifteen-year level at age ten
has an IQ of 150, but obviously this isn't true for an 80-year-old
who thinks like the average 120-year-old.  And how could one say
that a person with an IQ of 100 is "twice as intelligent" as a
person with an IQ of 50.  

Anyway, it doesn't seem all that difficult.  Especially when it's
all pretty much driven by statistics.  That is, given a random
number of problems of reasonable difficulty, what you're really doing
is observing and copying down that results and analyzing the data
that comes out.  

GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: RESULTS FOR TAI STANDARD INTELLIGENCE TEST
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:31:00 GMT


>From: "Michael J. Eager" <eager@eagercon.com>
>Message-ID: <1992Nov9.072959.11123@eagercon.com>
>...
>>userid         Kincaid Auto Colemn* Flesch
>>------         ------- ---- ------- ------
>>eager           11.2    9.4    9.8   13.5
>>
>>radams appears to be the most intelligent poster to
>>rec.org.mensa, followed by ehp and eager.
>
>
>Hot damn!   It seems I don't post much, but I pack a bunch into them
>little sesquipedelian words.  Finally getting the aclaim, whether
                 ^                                  ^

Mr. Eager splipped through only because it didn't check spelling.
:-)
From: matt@severian.chi.il.us: (Matt Crawford)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Xerox of GMAT score OK for admission?
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:32:52 GMT
Organization: HealthChex, Inc.

>> 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 From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart):
[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.






Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matthew Ivaliotes)
Subject: Help....college is killing me!!!!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:13:21 GMT

I could use the ideas of some fellow (as sson as my app goes through) Mensans
in solving my college problem.  You see, I am slowly going insane (only half-
joke there) because I am stuck here until I get my stupid degree.  I don't like
the structure or even the nature of modern higher education, particularly here
at the University of Illinois.  I have tons of ideas floating through my head, 
but no money and little confidence to execute them.  I feel stuck, unintelligent
, and dissappointing to thise around me.  I am only taking two classes for  
credit this semester, and still I am doing horribly.  I am a political science 
major (focusing on theory and international relations), and a former engineer
who got REALLY bored.  

I am now rambling.  If you'll pardon me, I'm going to call and see if I have
been diagnosed with any nasty mental ailment which might explain this.

Matt
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage, Suffrin'Cats.
Organization: OSU College of Osteopathic Medicine
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:01:19 GMT

This weighted suffrage thread is getting tedious:
Just try to argue that suffrage should be weighted on whether or not the test
for voting rights should be based on the presence (or absence) of a penis and
see what flames you get.
	Surely the principle of universal suffrage and one vote-per-person is
that we all have a common and equal stake in the running of the country, and,
at least in theory a common interest in the well being of the nation.
	I believe in "Brave New World" Huxley mentioned in passing an island
where the inhabitants were all alphas. He dismissed the experiment as coming to
a violent end (no flames on this please, I was twelve when I last read BNW.

David N. Chorley (barbarian-at-large)

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa