HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:56:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.183921.22841@julian.uwo.ca> roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts) writes:
>In article <mike_steiner-110193145218@192.35.50.131> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan8.203403.10139@julian.uwo.ca>, roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca
>>(Eric Roberts) wrote:
>>> 
>>> In article <1993Jan8.165547.21586@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>>> >In article <1993Jan7.233323.24625@julian.uwo.ca> roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts) writes:
>>> >>In article <mike_steiner-070193102944@192.35.50.131> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
>>> >>>In article <1993Jan4.204851.17743@julian.uwo.ca>, roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca
>>> >>>(Eric Roberts) wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Yes, I do not believe in evolution, and I have yet to see any reason
>>> >>>> why I should. There is plently of evidence against it.
>>> >>>
[....]
>>
>>Apparently, you don't know enough, because if you did, you would know that
>>probability doesn't have anything to do with it, because it has happened.
>Because it has happened? What has happened? Proof?
>

Oddly enough, several posts have cited examples that have happened
and that are happening even today, both natural and artificial.
You might have missed those posts, but I had thought that they
were followups to yours that you followed up to as well.  You might
argue that something is happening in addition to evolution, but I'd
be quite surprised to hear you continue denying that it exists.  If
you do, I can see no point in denying you your faith, if that's
what it is, and no point in arguing with words like "probability".
Any more than you would apply probability to your own beliefs.
It may be a good idea to check through those previous posts in
this thread.

GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:10:19 GMT

In article <93008.102218FDMWINK@UCF1VM.BITNET> <FDMWINK@UCF1VM.BITNET> "Larry Wink" writes:
>
>roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts) writes:
>
>>Prove that 1+1=2.
>
>Too easy (see Whitehead & Russell).  How about proving that 1 = 2?
>
>My favorite (from frosh calc):
>
>x + x + .... + x = x * x = x squared
><-  x times ->
>
>Taking the derivative (wrt x) of both sides yields:
>
>1 + 1 + .... + 1 = 2 * x
><-  x times ->
>
>so AAFCPS
>
>x = 2 * x or 1 = 2.
>
>About as valid and pertinent as your delusions on IQ tests and
>evolution.
Maybe as vaild as your delusion as to the validity of IQ tests.
>
> --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
>    "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing
>                            he was never reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift


Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian)
Subject: Re: IQ negatives
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 09:30:55 GMT

eiverson@nmsu.edu (Eric Iverson) writes:

>In article <1993Jan6.123441.12709@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> johnson@sleipnir.pb.wes.mot.com (Mark Johnson) writes:

>   In addition, an abundance of native learning ability may encourage
>   some individuals to "coast" through elementary and/or high school
>   without learning the discipline and habits required to succeed in
>   higher education or in the workplace.  This has been one of my
>   failings.

>I coasted through elementary school
>I coasted through middle school
>I coasted through high school
>I coasted through my BA in CS
>I coasted through my MA in Linguistics (didn't even read some of the books)
>I *haven't* coasted through my MS in CS
>Finally I have found something that requires more than casual thought.
>Unfortunately, at this point I'm too bored, burned out and jaded to
>willingly expend the effort.
>Isn't intelligence wonderful?

Coasting through college is hardly a curse, me thinks.  Considering how
much harder college is compared to high school and Navy nuclear power
school, I've determined that I must be at the very bottom of the top 2%.
Trade ya troubles... :) 
	
	Chris---

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:24:00 GMT


>From: Eric Roberts <roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca>
>Message-ID: <1993Jan5.211313.23465@julian.uwo.ca>
>
>The area where intelligence makes a difference, is application of
>knowledge aquired to new situations. Learning the theory of relativity
>requires much less then developing it...

You're certainly entitled to your own definition of intelligence.
But I can tell you that the school I attended is famous for drowning
its students in challenging problems, and a school a few miles away
is famous for its case method of teaching business.  In each of these
situations, you're constantly asked to apply knowledge you've
learned, not just reproduce a sample of it on a final.

>What I meant was that there is no proof that they measure inteligence, and
>that high IQ does not indicate it.

How could they, when you're the guy who defines what intelligence is?
You'll have to let them know what it is, so they can run some
correlation studies.

>(Somehow I used IQ for intelligence...:))
>>>If you think otherwise, please give me some references to studies that
>>>your opinion is based on .
>>
>>From, "Beyond IQ", by Robert J. Sternberg, page 122, the statement
>>is italicized for emphasis:  "One of the best single measures
>>of overall intelligence (as measured by intelligence tests)
>
>That is the whole point, I do not argue that it does not measure intelligence
>as defined by IQ, but rather that this IQ does not predict if a person
>is capable of more then a person with lower IQ (in other words an IQ
>of 200 is not equivalent to being able to develop the theory of
>relativity, nor does an IQ of 100 predict that you are not capable of it).

It depends on what you mean by "predict".  If you mean "guarantee", of
course, you're right.  But predict usually means you're only estimating,
or making a statement of probability, and in that sense IQ most
assuredly *does* predict quite a number of things, albeit rather
poorly in many cases.  Your statements are too vague for a proper
debate.

>>I think this is a bit extreme, as I've seen real cases, up close,
>>of the Wechsler's subsections providing useful diagnostic information.
>>I'm also well aware of the limitations of the test.
>>
>How do you know that the information was usefull or correct?

It corroborated other observations I had made, which the teachers
had overlooked.  From a mathematical viewpoint, as I said, when
no indicator is certain, all estimates are helpful.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: SAT and GRE
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:51:00 GMT


>From: FDMWINK%ucf1vm.bitnet@surname.draper.com, "Larry Wink"@ns.draper.com
>Message-ID: <93008.170817FDMWINK@UCF1VM.BITNET>
>
>I believe they have decided to add a writing section but I don't know
>when this might be implemented.  Personally, I think it an excellent
>idea.  Writing requires much different skills than multi-guess tests.

In theory, it seems like a good idea, for the reason you state.  The
problem is grading it.  The ETS has been severly criticized for the way
it's handled the grading of writing samples in the past.  It's a huge
operation grading something like the English Comp achievement test
essay.  I've heard the ETS hires moonlighting teachers from all over,
and with relatively little training, have them crank through piles of
essays, assigning grades on something like a 1-3 scale.  Each essay gets
read by two readers and the crude grades are somehow combined.  Some of
the graders have commented, off the record, that you get absolutely numb
and take the whole thing as a joke.  After a while, you develop the art
of "guessing" a grade at a glance.  In other words, your writing
sample has been reduced to a READING COMPREHENSION MULTIPLE CHOICE
ITEM for someone who couldn't care less about your score.
Now, that may be a slightly harsh view of it, but perhaps you
begin to understand why machine-readable multiple choice has
endured so well?

>When I first took the GRE it had Verbal and Quantitative sections which
>made up the 'Basic' test.  The Advanced tests were subject matter exams
>in your major and/or proposed graduate specialization.  About ten years
>ago (to keep my wife company) I took the Basic Exam again and was surprised
>(literally) to find three sections - Analytical had been added.  It was
>an interesting section but I don't know if it added any discrimination to
>the overal exam - I score about the same on all three sections.  But, at
>least now, I can claim I scored well over 1600 on the GRE.
>
>Does anyone know when (between 1970 & 1982) and why this section was added?

The Analytical section was added around 1980.  A survey of many
professors indicated they thought a certain set of analytical reasoning
skills were very important in graduate work, and that the old GRE didn't
test well for them.  From the little data I've seen, the new Analytical
section isn't an overwhelming success, but it adds a little to the
predictive power of the test among some groups.  Early versions of it
were found to be too easily coachable, so it was revised several times
before it "counted".  Now it consists of games, much like what you find
on the LSAT (the ETS doesn't like to do new research when it can just
borrow stuff from the guys down the hall).
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:36:29 GMT
Followup-To: rec.org.mensa

In article <1993Jan8.165043.21324@cbnewse.cb.att.com>,
gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) wrote:

[omitted]

> On another point, why would it be so difficult to reconcile
> religious beliefs with evolution?  If one were to assume that
> there were a God, why would one have the audacity to question the
> "right" method for an omniscient being to "create" or modify life?
> It seems a bit ridiculous for a believer to question anything a
> supreme being would do, particularly when "acceptance" would
> otherwise seem to be a believer's strong suit.

That is my belief.  Evolution is God's way of advancing/developing life.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|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.          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:48:57 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <93006.092247FDMWINK@UCF1VM.BITNET> <FDMWINK@UCF1VM.BITNET> "Larry Wink" writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.171804.26399@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com
>(gilbert.m.stewart) says:
>>
>>SAFE!  EASY!  FUN!  GUARANTEED TO MAKE YOU A GENIUS!
>>
>>If you would like your IQ measured in the privacy of your own home,
>>send a short paragraph describing WHY I AM A SMART PERSON and $5 to:
>>
>>  MARK STEWART'S OPINION OF YOUR IQ
>>  G. Mark Stewart
>[etc]
>
>An invaluable service to NetLand.  But Mark, the people who would be

Thanks for your endorsement!

BTW, ladies and gentlemen, Larry Wink is a certified genius, so let
that be a testimonial!

And to those of you who have already availed yourselves of the GIANT
SUPER-DELUXE NEW AND IMPROVED IQ TESTING BONANZA, let me take this
opportunity to tell you that our service has been EXPANDED!!  THAT'S
RIGHT!  EXPANDED to fill the needs of those of you who score OVER
150!!!  It just so happens that EVERYONE that has ordered has scored
OVER 150!!!  Now, of course, that means that we'll have to put you
all through the NEXT PHASE of TESTING to tell just exactly how
DARN SMART you are!  And, of course, that means extra testing evaluations
for our proctors (certified proctologists!).  So, if you are satisfied
with knowing that your IQ is OVER 150, your testing is COMPLETE.  BUT,
if you are one of the special few that want to know just HOW DARN
SMART YOU ARE, then rush to send in an additional $25 to COMPLETELY
CHANGE YOUR LIFE!!!  ONLY 1.6 times the cost of supporting a starving
child overseas to evaluate your potential to ERADICATE WORLD HUNGER
COMPLETELY!!!


     ONLY $25 FOR A LIFETIME OF SELF-WORTH AND SELF-FULFILLMENT!!!


                        GREAT GIFT IDEA!!!


    IHP 1F-420
    263 Schuman Blvd.
    Naperville, IL 60566

    Phone orders: 708-979-0914

    Operators are standing around!


>availing themselves of your service KNOW that they only get what they
>pay for.  Raise your price an order of magnitude and the number of
>takers will increase by at least two orders.
>
>BTW, the 900 number (to determine your IQ via T/F questions) I posted
>a few days ago is a no-shitter real 'service'.  Ain't life a kick.

Yeah, I saw it on TV a couple nights ago.  I even say a couple things
about it in my standup routine.  Like, dialing the number at all is
phase one of the testing.  If you call, you're probably already out
of the 110-200 range.  I've also heard that the testing takes from
5-15 minutes, and that it's $3.95 per minute.  Cheaper than a
psychologist, I guess.  But so's a pint of bourbon.  And it makes
you think you're real smart for about ten hours.
>
> --Larry Wink


GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:14:00 GMT


>From: eiverson@nmsu.edu
>Message-ID: <EIVERSON.93Jan6221336@aiaia.nmsu.edu>
>
>I think a good measure of intelligence would be whether, after joining
>Mensa, you have the good sense to quit.  I can honestly say that I
>have never met a bigger bunch of minutiae crazed, self-important
>blowhards in my life.  My next door neighbor (170 IQ, Ph.D in physics
>at age 21) who joined with me was even more infuriated.  Sort of like
>the meeting the bottom 2 percent of the top 2 percent.  As far as I'm
>concerned, the truly intelligent are those who don't have time to pat
>themselves on the back for having such a wonderful brain, because
>they're too busy using it.  But then what do I know?  I'm only working
>on my second Master's degree.  Maybe I shoulda joined Densa instead.

There may be truth in what you say, but many of those who are
"too busy using it" are also self-important blowhards.  In fact,
a very big ego often seems to go hand in hand with very high
achievement.  Let them brag, assuming they have anything to brag
about, and try to share in their pride.  I've been surprised by
what I've learned from some very big egos who others have refused
to befriend.  I think of it as a valuable social skill.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:15:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.141731.22407@wam.umd.edu> amanda@wam.umd.edu (Me again) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.204851.17743@julian.uwo.ca> roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts) writes:
>>In article <01GT3O31M8EAADDQGG@ccfvx3.draper.com> skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:
>>>
>>>>From: Eric Roberts <roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca>
>>>>Message-ID: <1993Jan2.065016.7699@julian.uwo.ca>
>>>>
>>>>In article <01GT0W4N5TS2ADDIMC@ccfvx3.draper.com> skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld
>>>> Hvatum) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>Vocabulary correlates fairly well with a range of other abilities.
>>>>>That's a fact, even if it's not clear why.
>>>>
>>>>What evidence is there that it does?
>>>
>>>[...]  Their regression
>>>statistics show a correlation between verbal SAT and freshman grades.
>>>Maybe you think that reasoning is a little too circular?
>>
>>So what? Since when does performance in school indicate intelligence?
>
>Define "intelligence."  What is this quality you call "intelligence?"  How
>can we judge it?  
>
>Can it be measured?
>
>If it cannot be measured, it thus must not have any effect on the world (as
>such an effect could be used to measure it) and thus, in my opinion, does not
>exist (or is not worth arguing over).
Maybe it can, however, not by IQ tests.
>
>If you would care to present your evidence against evolution, *privately* to
>me in email, i would be interested.
>
>amanda@wam.umd.edu                                           Amanda Babcock

See my reply to this in another message...
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Membership Renewal ??
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:21:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.144828.11908@ryn.mro4.dec.com> shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:
>Well, it's that time of year again where AMLtd. wants more money from me for
>the privilege of retaining my membership.
>
>Over the years, the cost of membership has increased, increased and increased
>with NO increase in benefits to the membership to justify the cost.

I tend to agree.  But this is only my perception.  I'd be curious as to
others' information as to what improvements may have been made to
member benefits that I might not be taking advantage of.

My perception is that Mensa may be run as a profit-making enterprise,
with much of the work done by volunteers who don't benefit from this profit.
I also seem to see lots of advertising or other publicity for Mensa, which
would account for it being the most recognized and largest high-IQ
society.  I don't know if that's good or bad, but it did seem to
benefit me.  I did more dating and partying after joining Mensa than
I ever thought I'd have time to do prior, and I wasn't exactly slacking
then, either.  It somehow seemed to conveniently work out.

[....]

>Having looked at the statistics for the preceeding 10 years (that was in 1985),
>I determined that we lost about 20% of the local membership each year due to
>non-renewals. Over the course of the year we regained that same number (plus a
>bit more). Of the members who joined the local group during the year, most of
>these were NEW members, NOT REJOINED members.

Isn't that normal for any voluntary organization?  Some like it, some are
blase', the novelty wears off, you find you have other interests more
pressing, etc., etc..

[....]
>
>The biggest issue I had was with the way current members treated new members.
>In most Mensa groups I notice that people tend to be very clique-ish. Buddies,
>pals, etc. tend to congregate in groups and keep to themselves. When new

This is interesting.  I found that at the first activities I went to (which
were over members' homes -- not public places), people went out of their
way to get me to participate and to be friendly to me.  It was a pleasant
surprise.  And those people weren't "designated greeters" or folks trying
for any office or anything -- just regular members.

>members attend, they pretty much wander around aimlessly hoping to find a spot
>to fit into a conversation, game, etc.
>
>Now, wouldn't it be nice if these new members were identified and embraced by
>the current members. Introduced around. Made to feel welcome. Invited to

This happened at monthly "official" meetings in Detroit.  But it may be
that if more individual participation is desired, a SMALLER group may
be better.

GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Subject: Membership Renewal ??
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Date:  7 JAN 93 09:34:28 EST

Well, it's that time of year again where AMLtd. wants more money from me for
the privilege of retaining my membership.

Over the years, the cost of membership has increased, increased and increased
with NO increase in benefits to the membership to justify the cost.

When I was VERY active I constantly tried to convince the 'powers that be' in
my local group that what we DON'T need is a NEW MEMBER membership drive, but
what we DO need is a KEEP OUR CURRENT MEMBERS membership drive. 

Having looked at the statistics for the preceeding 10 years (that was in 1985),
I determined that we lost about 20% of the local membership each year due to
non-renewals. Over the course of the year we regained that same number (plus a
bit more). Of the members who joined the local group during the year, most of
these were NEW members, NOT REJOINED members.

As such, it was my assertion that the local group could increase in size by
about 10-20% per year (v/s about 2-5% per year) just by doing things which
would RETAIN OUR CURRENT MEMBERSHIP.

The biggest issue I had was with the way current members treated new members.
In most Mensa groups I notice that people tend to be very clique-ish. Buddies,
pals, etc. tend to congregate in groups and keep to themselves. When new
members attend, they pretty much wander around aimlessly hoping to find a spot
to fit into a conversation, game, etc.

Now, wouldn't it be nice if these new members were identified and embraced by
the current members. Introduced around. Made to feel welcome. Invited to
participate. Etc. I used to host a weekly evening event and made a point of
greeting every attendee and when I met someone who I did not know, get to know
them, introduce them around, etc.

Sure we're going to lose members for one reason or another. But the toughest
part is getting new members. Once we get the member, we should strive to keep
the member. I believe it is less cost (both in time, effort and $$) to work to
retain membership than it is to go out and shill for new members.

Regards,
Steve.

/*******************************************************************
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is *
********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org  BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81  *
*******************************************************************/

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: amanda@wam.umd.edu (Me again)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:05:48 GMT

In article <01GSYXPOFNKIADDCAK@ccfvx3.draper.com> skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:

>IQ's I've seen on the net recently:  JFK, 119; Richard Feynman, 125.
>I'd like to what Feynam's circumstances were for that score.  Had
>he shopped for the right test at the right time, I've no doubt
>he could have done a lot better.  Not sure about JFK, though :-)

Does anyone else on this forum occasionally get the feeling from society
that a little smart is better, more useful, than a lot?  To clarify, that 
slightly-above-average people contribute more to society in a more efficient 
manner than most "genius"-IQ types?

I expect it's just an illusion based on the relative numbers involved.  And
the fact that lazy geniuses get noticed, while lazy above-average persons
blend in too well.

amanda@wam.umd.edu        - Certified Lazy Person -        Amanda Babcock
From: ron@syacus.acus.oz.au (Ron Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: New sins
Date: 10 Jan 93 08:33:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: syacus.1993Jan10.083337.3619
Organization: ACUS Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Sydney
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Rodney Adams (radams@BNR.CA) wrote:
> 
> Other listed sins in the Roman Catholic Church's first worldwide 
> addendum to its official list of sins since 1545 include:
> 

[ some deletions ]

> 7. Discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, age, 
>    religion, national origin or handicap

[ more deletes ]

Really?? 
Does this mean we will be seeing females in the priesthood sometime soon?
A mentally challenged pope?
Islamic cardinals?

:->

ron.

--
Ron Williams                  ACSnet : ron@syacus.acus.oz
Ph : +61 2 390-1366         Internet : ron@syacus.acus.OZ.AU
Fax: +61 2 390-1391             UUCP : uunet!munnari!syacus.acus.oz.au!ron
Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa