HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Reply to previous comments on Mega Test
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:46:39 GMT

In article <01GPMG84ITAA8WX205@ccfvx3.draper.com> skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:
}I'm sorry, I don't see very many ambiguous items on the Mega
}Test, if that's what you mean to imply.

As has been amply demonstrated here, virtually _any_ "which pattern
doesn't belong" type question can have multiple reasonable answers.  I
also came up with multiple possible answers for some of the verbal
analogies.

}What amused me about the mathematical questions on the test is that
}calculus is absolutely not needed to solve any of the questions.  I can
}think of one or two questions which could be solved with simple
}calculus, but the more elegant solutions require no calculus whatsoever.

I hope that much of a hint doesn't constitute cheating.  I'll
re-examine my assumptions.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: yoo@netcom.com (Young-Kyu Yoo)
Subject: Re: Doubters Of Astrology
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 08:06:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

I'm not a member of Mensa, though I do have the test scores to qualify
(1580 SATs, perfect PSATs).  I have a degree in mathematics (pure as opposed
to applied) from the U. of Chicago.  I am also an amateur astrologer.

Having been a science geek for most of my life, I've often pooh-poohed the
pseudo-sciences: from chiropracty to astrology.  I accepted on faith the
opinions of 'serious' scientists on such matters.  

A good scientist, however,
should take very little on faith.  The "opinions" of a Nobel Prize winner
amount to nothing if the preponderance of physical evidence weighs against
her.   

Astrology is an empirical discipline.  It is about prediction and 
observable results.  It is NOT well-founded in terms of theory.  Many
crackpots expouse wild, physically implausible if not impossible 
mechanisms in attempts to explain WHY astrology works.  This, of course,
is separate from the question of IF astrology works.  Things CAN work
even if we don't know WHY they do.  Gravity was the law before Newton
was born and before the general theory of relativity.  And, based on
observation, I believe astrology WORKS; though, at the moment, no one
truly knows WHY it does.  

Let me qualify this.  I believe "natal" astrology works:  i.e., 
personality profiles generated from birth data.  Having cast natal
horoscopes for myself, friends, and total strangers (I use software to
generate the planetary charts and interpret them with Lewellyn's classic
astrology text), I've been repeatedly struck by the uncanny accuracy
of the results.

Horary astrology (used to predict future events) I remain unconvinced of.
I've yet to see it work to any significant degree.  
In fact, I've seen numerous spectacular failures involving horary astrology.
Many folks, unfortunately, place an unhealthy amount of faith in the
prophetic powers of astrology.  Kings and at least one American president
have based state decisions on the advise of astrologers who unscrupulously
promote horary astrology.  

A true scientist and skeptic, I think, remains neutral on a question until
the physical data tips the scale in one direction or the other.  To those
who dismiss astrology without testing it empirically themselves or 
critically examining the small body of serious scientific work on the
subject (there have been many attempts to debunk it...but very few such
attempts hold up under serious scientific or mathematical scrutiny...
a consequence of the fact that most debunkers are not serious
scientists), I would say that it is not skepticism they are practicing,
but an UNscientific, unexamined prejudice against the so-called pseudo-sciences.
 .
 
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Muchow D.: About Nothing ==> NOT HARDLY
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 06:27:41 GMT

gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>muchow@venus.iex.com (Don Muchow) writes:
>>A barber shaves everyone who does not shave him(or her)self, and does not
>>shave anyone who does shave him(/her)self.
>>
>>There are no linguistic loopholes or other similar tricks here.  Now, the
>>question is: Does the barber shave himself?
>>
>>I know there is some sort of logical fallacy here, or something like one, or
>>perhaps this question is just a freak of nature.

>Yes.  The premise you've stated is false.
>
>GMS

Nothing trivial here. This is Russell's paradox, and ultimately ties into
Godel, as I recall. There are three set theories, one of which is plagued
by this paradox, and one of which is not, more than that I don't recall.

It has to do with whether domains can contain themselves, and whther your
axioms get you into trouble.

If I could do math symbols in this medium, I could write the thing down
in a fairly clear fashion. Go browse set-theory books in a math section
somewhere, look up Russell's paradox. It has another name in a variation
(as I aslo recall.)

-ecsd
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: T/ The Candidates in Oz
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:14:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.222029.20919@ncsu.edu>, tai@ailab.ncsu.edu (Scott A Tai) writes:
> 
> 
> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
> 
> |> Bush said, "I want a heart.
> |> Perot said, "I want courage.
> |> Qualye said, "I want a brain."
> |> Clinton said, "I want Dorothy."
> 
> Ha.

I'm glad that you enjoyed it.
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: t-- Re: t// Re: T/T: Statistics - rec.org.mensa most prolific posters!
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:48:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.231828.1418@ncsu.edu>, tai@ailab.ncsu.edu (Scott A Tai) writes:

> MENSA is an organization whose membership is contingent upon 
> scoring high on standardized tests of dubious merit,

That these tests are of dubious merit has yet to be proven.

> and this 
> is why I am here.

That is a non sequitur.

> I hold nothing against the formation of 
> elitist organizations, but I have more respect for those which 
> base their membership on more solid ground, such as technical, 
> professional, or even financial success.  I am not trying to say 
> that an organization of intelligent people should not exist; I 
> merely state that MENSA is not necessarily an organization of 
> intelligent people.  I do not believe such an organization exists.

Whether you believe it or not does not change the facts.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: tai@ailab.ncsu.edu (Scott A Tai)
Subject: t// Re: t-- Re: t// t// Re: REC.ORG.MENSA TODAY
Originator: tai@ailab.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: tai@ailab.ncsu.edu (Scott A Tai)
Organization: NCSU Artificial Intelligence Systems Laboratory
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:55:47 GMT


sonic@cray.com (Curtis L. Swanson) writes:
|> I have much better things to concern myself with.  You know, the thing 
|> you said you had a few months ago but have apparently lost?

Which is?  Dissertation?  Virginity?  Help me out here... :)

|> Interesting.  You keep saying that you enjoy intelligent debate but I have
|> yet to see anything more than proposals and theories from you.  No rebuttals,
|> nada.  Although, I will admit your last question about the "separate but 
|> equal" is intriguing.  Could you elaborate?

No--every time I try to initiate intelligent debate, the thread is
usually ignored.

--
Scott Tai -- tai@ailab.ncsu.edu
NCSU Artificial Intelligence Lab
Centennial Campus
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: tai@ailab.ncsu.edu (Scott A Tai)
Subject: t// Re: T// Re: T% Thought for the Day
Originator: tai@ailab.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: tai@ailab.ncsu.edu (Scott A Tai)
Organization: NCSU Artificial Intelligence Systems Laboratory
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:26:29 GMT


sonic@cray.com (Curtis L. Swanson) writes:
|> Ummmm,  "somebody" bothered to write the following:
|> *[ObNonFlameContent: It is interesting that in our society husbands and 
|> *wives are at least as much alike in IQ as brothers and sisters.  If men 
|> *and women picked their mates strictly at random, as by a lottery, spouses 
|> *would differ by an average of 18 IQ points.  But in fact men and women
|> *choose one another partly for intelligence, and so spouses differ by
|> *only 10 or 11 points in IQ.]
|> *
|> 
|> What is the point or relavence of the last paragraph?  Are  you trying to 
|> say that you're GMS's wife???

Yes, actually.  Do you have a problem with that?

[ObTai:      
    "The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure
     of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not
     superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear
     surfaces are measured..."
                              (Alfred Binet, writing in 1905)
]

--
Mrs Scott A Tai-Stewart
From: mai@ailab.ncsu.edu (Mai Tai)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Personal to gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:02:45 GMT
Reply-To: mai@ailab.ncsu.edu (Mai Tai)
Organization: NCSU Artificial Intelligence Systems Laboratory


Gilbert:

If I were to guess, I'd say that you are having great difficulty.  
I'd also say that whatever results from IQ tests you have, you 
don't score very high.  In short, you don't strike me as even average
intelligence.  This leads me to believe that you may work at
AT&T in some support function, such as an operator.  

Now, if none of this is true, and you are some fairly innocent
janitor or service employee at AT&T, please realize that you might 
be in very deep shit if the management finds you, essentially, 
playing games with their equipment.

None of the above bothers me, but I know it bothers other people,
and they might not be so concerned or helpful as I'm trying to
be, and they might "rat" on you, so to speak, at the drop of
a hat, and if you have some kind of job, I'm assuming it is
just getting you by, and losing it at this point in the
economic cycle would not be pretty, even assuming you have
marketable skills.

So if you are somehow getting access to the computer without 
permission from AT&T, please come clean.  I know it sounds trivial, 
but some corporations are a bit touchy when it comes to custodians, 
dishwashers, etc., etc., using expensive resources that are in short 
supply for salaried workers.

Good Luck!

Mai
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: rhs@world.std.com (Richard H Schwartz)
Subject: Re: t// Re: REC.ORG.MENSA TODAY
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:10:03 GMT

tai@ailab.ncsu.edu (Scott A Tai) writes:
>rhs@world.std.com (Richard H Schwartz) writes:
>|> Mensa is significant because it keeps us Mensans off the streets.

>Now if only it could keep you off the net... *sigh*

Ooooooooh!  Hurt me!  Hurt me!  

The mighty Tai has spoken his venomous words.  Can I ever recover?

Frankly, Scott, you've got your wish.  Mensa does keep me off the net.
I'd be on a good bit more if Mensa weren't part of my life.  Yes, Scott, I 
have a life that is vastly more interesting than the flame wars you take 
such obvious pleasure in inciting.  And it so happens that Mensa is a
part of that life.  That this very idea bothers you is of no significance.
Sigh all you want.  We're not going to go away.

-rich

-- 
             Richard H. Schwartz, Scheduling Systems Inc.,
            1000 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA  02138
                  (617) 864 8330; FAX (617) 864 8377
                          rhs@world.std.com
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Famous Mensans
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:44:41 GMT

In article <SUOPANKI.92Oct2221623@zombie.oulu.fi>, suopanki@zombie.oulu.fi (Heikki Suopanki) writes:
> 
> >>>>> On 1 Oct 92 21:13:10 GMT, mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) said:
>  
> > All right...at the risk of boring you all with repetition, this card-carrying
> > Mensan would like to ask for the names of famous Mensans.  I was asked for
> > this info and came up with a near blank.
> 
> Mike> Isaac Asimov, Sir Clive Sinclair, Geena Davis
> 
> yeap
> 
> Mike> F. Buckminster Fuller, Adrian Kronaur, Jean Auel, F. Lee Bailey,
> Mike> Donald Petersen
> 
> just wondering who are these persons....

Bucky Fuller invented the Geodisk Dome; the newly-discovered carbon molecule that
is shaped like a geodisk dome was dubbed "bucky ball" in his honor.  Kronaur was
the man whose experiences in Vietnam was the basis for the movie, _Good Morning,
Vietnam!_  Jean Auel is an author; she wrote _Clan of the Cave Bear_ and its
sequels.  Lee Bailey is considered one of the best criminal defense attorneys in
the United States.  Don Petersen is the former president of Ford Motor Company;
he retired a few years ago.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: crawdad@fncent (Matt Crawford)
Subject: Re: Doubters Of Astrology
Organization: FERMILAB, Batavia, IL
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:44:17 GMT

My news server seems to expire "res" groups awfully quickly, so my
attributions will be a bit spotty.  (Included text will also be slim,
but that's certainly not something to apologize for!)

A motcid!wiegand recounts his own experience as part of a group that
received identical purported horoscopic readings and generally rated
those readings as "very good."  This, and many similar studies, shows
that letting the recipient of a reading rate its accuracy cannot give
any support to the hypothesis that astrology is valid.

Suppose recipients of astrological readings were presented with a
number of readings derived from different brithdates, and were not
told from what birthdate each was derived.  Ask each to choose which
reading most accurately describes him or her.  Then if the number of
recipients who select as "most accurate" the reading derived from
their own birthdate is significantly greater than the number of
correct selections which would be expected from chance, *that* would
be support for claims such as ECSD's.

If ECSD finds this test unacceptable, then I will believe (but not
claim to have proven) that either he is hostile to scientific inquiry
or has no faith in astrology.
_________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford       crawdad@fncent.fnal.gov      Fermilab
From: jwp@chem.ucsd.edu (John Pierce)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Muchow D.: About Nothing
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:52:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: network.1aa1k9INNejm
Organization: Chemistry Dept, UC San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: chedccf0.ucsd.edu


 > ... the barber shaves himself, AND the barber does not shave himself.

Nah... Zen barber.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: rhs@world.std.com (Richard H Schwartz)
Subject: Re: T/ Re: T% Thought for the Day
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:01:45 GMT

tai@ailab.ncsu.edu (Scott A Tai) writes:

>People whose
>intelligence is expressed in other ways that the ability to pass tests
>need not apply -- even if accepted, 

Nonsense as written, and nonsense by any reasonable interpretation.

Some people (not you obviously) value the idea of a group that attempts
as best as it can to select members from the segment of society that 
is considered "intelligent".  That testing is an imperfect criterion for
such selection is unfortunate, but being willing to live with that known
imperfection says nothing about us as members.  Nor does it imply
anything about our attitude to those whom we individually recognize as 
intelligent despite scores that fall short of the statistical norms.

>the mindset of MENSA members is that of
>people who find the passing of tests to be important and valuable.

In the sense that having fun with a neat group of people who have some
things in common with you, I guess you're right -- we find something to
be important and valuable.  But not the taking of tests.  Not the 
interpretation of the scores.  For myself, and for many others, submission
of scores for qualification for Mensa came as an afterthought.  The tests
were already taken, the scores received and sent on for whatever purpose
they were obtained, the percentiles already known.

Tests are things that most of us have *had* to take at one time in our
lives.  We don't take them to "pass".  We take them to be measured against
some contrived scale, for some purpose in life.  After taking one or two
of these tests, we *know* that we will be measured near the top of the
scale on any similar test.  Yet for each major step in our education, we
are subjected to another one because someone else thinks these tests are
important and valuable.

-rich
-- 
             Richard H. Schwartz, Scheduling Systems Inc.,
            1000 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA  02138
                  (617) 864 8330; FAX (617) 864 8377
                          rhs@world.std.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: cjdcosta@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER J DCOSTA)
Subject: Re: Doubters Of Astrology
Originator: cjdcosta@zepplin.ece.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: cjdcosta@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER J DCOSTA)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:24:55 GMT


I think Eric's made a fair offer, and I hope someone takes him up on it.
I used to be one of astrology's many skeptics, until I noted certain
characteristics in people that were startlingly close to what their signs
would predict. Call it what you may, it was sufficient evidence for me not 
to dismiss astrology completely out of hand.  
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: tai@ailab.ncsu.edu (Scott A Tai)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: t// t// Re: T/ Re: T% Thought for the Day
Date: 30 Sep 92 02:15:33 GMT
Reply-To: tai@ailab.ncsu.edu (Scott A Tai)
Organization: NCSU Artificial Intelligence Systems Laboratory
Originator: tai@ailab.ncsu.edu


mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas) writes:
|> Of course!  After all, we are all CLONES of one another, and we're all
|> EXACTLY ALIKE so therefore we should all BE alike.  What a great idea!
|> No individuality!  I love it!

Well... we already knew all engineers are exactly alike!

--
Scott Tai -- tai@ailab.ncsu.edu
NCSU Artificial Intelligence Lab
Centennial Campus
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: tai@ailab.ncsu.edu (Scott A Tai)
Subject: t// Re: t-- Re: t// Re: T/T: Statistics - rec.org.mensa most prolific posters!
Originator: tai@ailab.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: tai@ailab.ncsu.edu (Scott A Tai)
Organization: NCSU Artificial Intelligence Systems Laboratory
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:52:26 GMT


shrum@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Rick Shrum) writes:
|> Scott,
|> 
|> Well, even if what you are saying is true, why does it bother you so
|> much for them to exist. Do you think they are going to disband if
|> you nag them long enough? As far as their tests having dubious merit,
|> well, if you are aware of this, then you must certainly have the necessary
|> expertese to design a test which would be fair and equitable. 
|> It is none of my business whatsoever in what you want to post, but   
|> IMTUO (In MY Totally Unsolicited Opinion) it seems you're obsessing.
|> Also, like I said, I am not a MENSAN (Duh?).

I'm not denying their right to exist, and I definitely don't believe 
they're going to disband.  You're right--I believe I could design a fair 
and equitable test, but I don't have the time or the money.  You're wrong 
about the obsessing, as Mike Steiner would say.

[ If anyone is an Eliza-type program, it's Mike Steiner.  I've noticed
  the following five statements generated repeatedly by Steiner in 
  response to my posts:

> That's a lie, and you know it.
> Bullshit.
> You're wrong.
> Get a life.
> Grow up.

]

:)

--
Scott Tai -- tai@ailab.ncsu.edu
NCSU Artificial Intelligence Lab
Centennial Campus
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: lhummel@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Lionel Hummel)
Subject: Re: "wrong" answers on IQ tests
Organization: Motorola MCD, Urbana Design Center
	<15238@claris.com> <1992Oct1.160210.3704@cbnewse.cb.att.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 23:22:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.160210.3704@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:

>>> >Ha!  "Q" doesn't appear in the word, "Havana."  (You didn't say that "F" is
>>> >the only word on the list that doesn't appear in the word "Havana.")
>>> 
>>> Actually, "A" is the only word on the list.
>>
>>True.  I meant "letter," not "word."

> I knew that.  I was just yanking your chain.

> But someone sent e-mail to me that said "their dictionary says they're
> all words."  I know the dictionary lists a few definitions, such as
> the ordinal ones (e. g., "F" is defined as the "sixth item in a
> list"), but does that make letters words?  That would also contradict
> the rule of a "word" necessarily having a vowel.  A-E-I-O-U and sometimes
> "all the rest of the letters"?

Tsk tsk.

> Comments?

Hmph!

< Lionel
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: yoo@netcom.com (Young-Kyu Yoo)
Subject: Re: Doubters Of Astrology
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 02:34:35 GMT

>Similarly, until an astrologer can show that s/he did not use psychological
>flim-flam to make her assessments, the logical conclusion is that s/he did use
>flim flam.

1.  Occam's razor is not a LOGICAL necessity.  Its use is convention, as much
as the assumption of innocence in American courts and the assumption of
guilt in Britain.  

2.  I have NOT argued, "People were struck by the uncanny accuracy of my
horoscopes, so astrology is for real."  I HAVE argued, "*I* was struck by
the uncanny accuracy of my horoscopes (as attested to by the subjects),
therefore *I* believe there is something to astrology."  I have also
argued that folks should check astrology out for themselves
(by actually casting horoscopes, rather than taking my word on the
subject).  


Clear?           
.


Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa