HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: don@atssc.att.com (Don A. Bouquet)
Subject: Navy GCT score conversion
Organization: AT&T CSC, Morrow, Ga
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:39:14 GMT

Hello everyone,

    I have recently been accepted for Mensa membership on the basis

  of my Navy GCT score (taken back in 1975). Does anyone know what 

  a score of 73 (out of a possible 76) on this test "converts" to 

  in terms of an IQ score?

                         Thanks in advance,

                           Don Bouquet
                           don@atssc.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Evolution n
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:43:10 GMT

In article <zlsiida.732@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.000327.6527@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>
>>>As this is supposed to be a newsgroup for very intelligent people, let
>>>me remind you that many of the world's geniuses have and still do believe
>>>the Bible.  Evidence for a young earth and a sudden creation exists,
>
>You have a list of "the world's geniuses" ?  I doubt it.  So how can you 
>know what proportion of them believe the Bible?  
[....]
>        Never believe an experiment until it is confirmed by theory 
>    Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England    (44|0)61-275-6033  

For shame, Dave.  See the extra ">>"s?  That means that you're
attributing something to me that I didn't say.  And certainly
wouldn't.

BTW, I do have a list of the world's geniuses.  And unfortunately,
now I'm forced to take your name off it.

GMS

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 14:17:31 GMT

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).

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
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 12:50:00 GMT


>From: Eric Roberts <roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca>
>Message-ID: <1993Jan6.220509.27654@julian.uwo.ca>
>
>Does a high IQ correlate well with solving those challenging problems in
>your school?

Yes, the correlation over the full population range is probably very
good.  The correlation within the extremely select student population is
probably fairly poor, as is typical of SAT and GRE scores within highly
restricted groups.

>You have a point here, however, those who develop the tests don't have
>a definition either, which would indicate that they don't know what they
>are doing; they can, of course, claim that it is what those tests measure
>but in this case intelligence appears to be of little value.

In the case of the SAT, which is practically an IQ test, validity
studies are being done all the time, even by individual schools to
fine-tune their admissions formulas.

>I did not mean that it does not guarantee, I meant that a high IQ does not
>indicate (or make itmuch more propable) that you are capable of more
>than a person with a lower IQ.

You're right if you're talking about the kind of small differences (130
IQ vs. 140 IQ) that seem to be important to some people.  But if you're
talking about 67 IQ vs. 143, your statement is very likely to be flat
wrong.

>I agree that all estimates may be helpfull, what I disagree with
>is the commonly held assertion that a low IQ is equivalent to low
>potential (to become a very good mathematician for example).

I tend to agree.  But, again, it depends on the degree.  Your example
about becoming a mathematician might have been a bad choice.  It's one
of the fields for which studies have demonstrated a fairly definite IQ
floor for success.  Yes, the floor is not too high (maybe around 120),
but it's clear that someone who can't break 70 on any of a number of
different IQ tests is highly likely to have severe problems handling
college math.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:28:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.103830@massima.com> ajr@ice.massima.com (Arnold J Rimmer) writes:
>
>People People People...
>
>What is all the fuss about?
>
>IQ tests are not true indicators of intelligence or of mental accuity...

The fuss is that it is difficult to define intelligence, has been a source
of debate for hundreds of years by people the world over, and it should
not surprise anyone that the discussion has not been decided on this
newsgroup either.  Also, scoring poorly and feeling insecure about low
IQ or other scores is a source of displeasure for some.

>Outside of academic pursuits, does anyone really care what your IQ, SAT,
>or GPA scores are?  Only to those who use it as a crutch, perhaps to make
>up for something that they lack in other areas.

I wouldn't be at all surprised.  Sort of like any other skill, achievement,
quality, or assessment.  Everyone wants to feel valuable.  Isn't
debating the relative value of skills, etc., rather situation-dependent?
("He may be a serial-killer, but man, can he play the accordion!")
>
>One cannot possibly judge the intelligence of an indivudual by a mere 
>test on paper.  And what right do they have to grade my intelligence or
>potential by their set standards.  

It's fairly obvious that, given a finite number of resources to 
distribute, that the distributors seek to optimize the resultant
value.  In the case of job positions or university enrollments, etc.,
they have every right to, and indeed do, by their own standards.

In the cases of those denied those resources due to the need to
limit the number, these are unfortunate, and their cries of
unfairness are to be expected.

If resources were infinite, or people could be judged exactly,
it would not be necessary.  But the real world is quite a different place.
>
>Excellence in one's self...  believe in your self and not what people say
>about you.

This, as you must know, is each individual's personal view, and left to each
individual to make their own assessment of, not necessarily with regard to
what some other individual or institution thinks or requires.  But thinking
you are a good person obviously does not always ensure that you will meet
another's requirements or those of their institution.

That's why, for example, malpractice suits are seldom thrown out of
court with the conclusion, "But he meant well."

>
>					Signing off,
>					Arnold J. Rimmer

Bye!  Thanks for visiting!

G("Whose Horse Is Apparently Not Yet Dead")MS
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 19:50:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.161401.23758@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>In article <Jan.9.06.57.10.1993.4025@remus.rutgers.edu> clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan8.203403.10139@julian.uwo.ca>, Eric Roberts writes:
>>
>>> I know enought about genetics to know that what the theory
>>> of evolution claims is impropable. 
>>
>>The fact that a sequence of probable events, spread over a billion
>>years, can lead to what is apparently improbable.
>>
>>Evolution is a fact, and I find your attitude towards it completely
>>bizarre.  Evolution is testable, as any scientific theory must be, so
>>feel free to come up with some evidence that it's false.
>
>This sounds suspiciously like one of those debates in which party or
>parties have emotionally attached themselves to a conclusion and are
>desperately ignoring points and/or evidence to preserve their frame
>of reference.  In that, it seems very similar to some rather pointless
>IQ testing "debates" that occurred not too many months ago.
>
>"X is bad!"
>"Why?"
>"It just is!  I don't like it!"
>"Here's why it's not."
>"Well I don't believe that.  And how can you prove that?  What if...
>life is a... dream, and we can't really prove anything??  What if
>Eleanor Roosevelt could fly??"
>
>From which Valuable Conclusions for Living arise, of course.
When it comes to IQ tests, it is up to those who support them to
prove that they work; which they have failed to do.
When it comes to the famous debates, however, I see your point.:)
 
>I guess I don't have much problem with a person maintaining their
>personal ideological framework, or delusions, for that matter.  But
>I can't bring myself to attribute any "goodness" or "badness" to it
>except in that I personally don't find it particularly useful or
>constructive in any way to support delusions.  Then again, who knows
>what the future holds?
>
>GMS
From: clong@romulus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Four Sigma?
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:49:38 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <01GT3KTMETV6ADC7DB@ccfvx3.draper.com>, Kjeld Hvatum writes:

> Unfortunately, responses from this address are not always prompt, to say
> the least.

The phrase "Langdon is a crook" springs to mind.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ 08807-2618

Score: 0, Diff: 1, clong killed by a Harvard Math Team on  1
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:24:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.041352.13392@julian.uwo.ca> roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts) writes:
>In article <mike_steiner-070193104651@192.35.50.131> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan6.225536.1653@julian.uwo.ca>, roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca
>>(Eric Roberts) wrote:
>>
>>> I have read the sci.skeptic FAQ, and the arguments presented there are
>>> not in the least degree convincing. It response to the argument above,
>>> they state:
>>
>>> ER> Consider the freezing water in the example.  The wonderful
[.....]
>>
>>Your rebuttal is simply nonsense.  No one, other than you, has claimed that
>>anything evolves by "mistakes."  A belief that the next stone thrown will
>>fly to Mars is about the same level of belief that evolution does not
>>happen.
>>
>Oh, is that so? In this case we must be discussing two different theories,
>please enlighten me as to what process your evolution uses.
> 

This is simply a problem of semantics.  The term, "mistake," appears to
have some negative connotation.  What you both might want to use is
just "mutation", or, simply "genetic modification".  A change is
neither good nor bad except in the light of whether it furthers
survival of the species.

>>BTW, what do you believe has caused all the various species of plants and
>>animals (including the extinct ones) to have developed on this planet?  If
>>not evolution, then what?
>>
>I don't know and never claimed that I did.
>

You're not even curious?  You don't have any opinion?  C'mon, this is
fun!

GMS
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Missing Mensans
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:00:29 GMT
Followup-To: rec.org.mensa

In article <2935823441.3.p00168@psilink.com>, p00168@psilink.com (James F.
Tims) wrote:
> 
> [rec.org.mensa FAQ...membership stats]
> 
> >  49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist,
> >  9% no religion
> >
> [...]
> 
> And 19.4% what?  Did I lose a line or something?

"Other" I assume.  Buddhist, Hindu, Islam, Scientology, etc.  Maybe even a
few dittoheads.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|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: johnson@sleipnir.pb.wes.mot.com (Mark Johnson)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Reply-To: johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Wireless Enterprises, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:10:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.211553.24007@julian.uwo.ca>, roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts) writes:
=)In article <1993Jan5.141731.22407@wam.umd.edu> amanda@wam.umd.edu (Me again) writes:
=)>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.
=)>
Perhaps you have a better way?  Keep in mind, though, that the idea is to
*predict* performance, not measure it.  All this research over the years
has not been done solely to see who could get into Mensa.  If you have a
better predictive indicator, I and probably the entire psychometric
community would be very interested to hear of it.
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Johnson"                              |Just because you're paranoid doesn't|
| johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com |   mean they're not out to get you. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Let's face it; if our lawyers knew what went on here, they'd shut us down.  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Organization: UCF (where the surf is never up)
Date: Friday, 8 Jan 1993 17:08:16 EST
From: <FDMWINK@UCF1VM.BITNET> "Larry Wink"
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: SAT and GRE
 <C0JJzE.J17@news.rich.bnr.ca>

In article <C0JJzE.J17@news.rich.bnr.ca>, radams@BNR.CA (Rodney Adams) says:
>
>I seem to remember hearing early last year that ETS was considering
>adopting a writing section on the SAT.  Does anyone have any further
>information on this?
>
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.

The only time I was faced with an essay section on a standardized
test was the NYS Regents Scholarship Exam back in the 60's.  Does anyone
know if it still has an essay section?

>Also, I've seen two graduate admission forms recently that have blanks
>for an "Advanced" score on the GRE, one of which did not have a blank
>for an Analytical score and the other of which had blanks for Verbal,
>Quantitative, Analytical, and Advanced score.  I took the GRE about
>1 1/2 years ago, and I my test report had no mention of an Advanced
>score.  Was this perhaps a section of the test that was replaced by the
>Analytical section?  Anyone know?
>
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?

 --Larry Wink
From: joe@bulldog.sybase.com (Joseph Weinstein)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: God as Data Source (was Atheism vs. Intelligence)
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:05:39 GMT
Reply-To: joe@bulldog.sybase.com (Joseph Weinstein)
Organization: Sybase, Inc.


The way I see it, to the extent a person thinks for him/herself, God becomes
secondary, at least on a day-to-day basis, and that the central issue remains
who you choose to be:

To the extent that God is all powerful, and "runs things", your acts, thoughts
and feelings are involuntary and moot. To the degree that this is the case, God
seems pretty random, but we don't need to care or be involved. It's his party.

Alternatively, to the extent that God speaks to you in whatever way, but allows
you to accept or not, ie: to the extent you are an individual, God is just
another salesman/politician, good or bad, who would tell you what to do, think or
feel. To the degree that this latter case is true, you alone are ultimately
responsible for defining what is right or wrong, if only as crudely as accepting
a packaged party line (any organized religion). Your intelligence and experience
are the only tools for making these judgements.

Even if you accept "the word of God" as the best advise, you will have to have derived
a personal logical system or framework to validate his advise, else you will have
abdicated your responsibility to evaluate. Once such a framework is constructed, it
is likely to be consulted at least as a 50% weight with whatever God says at any
decision point, if only to validate the framework. Because the framework is an
internal construct and is therefore is more readily available, it is likely to
be consulted first, and after a while, and the framework is provisionally beta-
tested and becomes trustable in the normal course. Frequent going-back-to-God is
IMHO, a sign of a poor model-maker.



--
Joe Weinstein   joe@sybase.com   Sybase 1650 65th st.  Emeryville Ca 94608

NOT A DISCLAIMER!   THIS IS THE OFFICIAL OPINION OF AN IMPORTANT CORPORATE
                    ENTITY (NOT SYBASE).     FOR COMPLETE DETAILS SEND $10
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: helpdesk@cs.utwente.nl ([BenO helpdesk dispatcher])
Subject: Lament
Reply-To: helpdesk@cs.utwente.nl
Organization: University of Twente, Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 09:45:20 GMT

At the New Year's Reception here in NL at the weekend I saw pieces on
the IG at the Flevohof in October in several American Mensa Journals. Glad 
you folks enjoyed yourselves here!
The group photo taken on Sunday was in Lament - I would very much like a 
copy - can anyone tell me whom I should approach?


Lynn Packwood 



Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:18:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.183720.22653@julian.uwo.ca> roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts) writes:
>In article <mike_steiner-110193144834@192.35.50.131> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan8.202654.9396@julian.uwo.ca>, roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca
>>(Eric Roberts) wrote:
>>> 
>>> In article <1993Jan8.171012.22397@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>>> >Also, I was wondering if you had any theories with respect to why
>>> >so many institutions use these tests even if they have been proven
>>> >worthless.  Thanks in advance.
>>> >
>>> >GMS
>>> Nope, I never figured that one out. One reason might be that people
>>> attempt to measure everything, and feel more comfortable with a 
>>> number. I hope you are not suggesting that the fact that 
>>> people use those tests makes them valid...
>>
>>It just may be that those test really do what they are purported to do.  Do
>>you have any evidence to show otherwise? 
>It is not my duty to do so. You claim they measure someting, prove it.

No, it's not your duty to do or understand or know anything.
Unfortunately, it's not a very constructive position unless you
need to maintain faith in something that is constructive for you
regardless of its veracity, which is of course possible.

But in this case, you've been shown many examples and other
evidence, so I'm at a loss why you don't find it necessary
or even entertaining to accept or even examine them.  I've
always thought that rational thought is quite fun and healthy.
You might not want to dismiss the issue so cavalierly.

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: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:34:03 GMT

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.
>>>
>>>On the contrary; there is plenty of evidence for it.  There is precious
>>>little evidence against it.  Although the mechanism of evolution is not
>>>fully understood, that does not mean that evolution doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>Evolution happens.
>>>
>[....]
>
>>I am not claiming that the world was created the way it is described
>>in the bible. What I am saying, is that it seems impropable to me
>>that human beings came into existence by genetical mutations.
>
>Pardon my bluntness, and I honestly don't mean this to come across
>as an insult (I would just be sarcastic, if so), but I get the distinct
>impression that you don't have much of a background in the related
>sciences.  If that's the case, you might have some interesting
>research ahead of you.  As for a very readable book that just happens
>to have some rationale for the structural development of the human
>body, for instance, check out Asimov's "The Human Body".  It's
>available in cheap paperback, too, for around six bucks.  Any 
>elementary biology text will have information on examples of
>natural selection related to mutation and evolution.
>
>GMS

I know enought about genetics to know that what the theory
of evolution claims is impropable. 
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: matt@severian.chi.il.us (Matt Crawford)
Subject: Evolution (was Re: IQ Test?)
Organization: The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:07:41 GMT

Eric Roberts:
> I am not claiming that the world was created the way it is described
> in the bible. What I am saying, is that it seems impropable to me
> that human beings came into existence by genetical mutations.

Try this simple exercise.  Describe in your own words just how long a
period of time is a billion years.  Compare it first to the duration
of a chemical reaction, then to the reproductive cycle of a single-
celled organism.
__________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford       matt@severian.chi.il.us       Java Man


Newsgroups: rec.photo