From: radams@BNR.CA (Rodney Adams)
Subject: Re: RESULTS FOR TAI STANDARD INTELLIGENCE TEST
Reply-To: "Rodney Adams" <RADAMS@BNR.CA>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 19:37:27 GMT

In article <Bx8wJ3.Iw0@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve
Franklin) writes:
|>In article <1992Nov5.031100.27122@ncsu.edu>
scott@bogus.network.address (Scott Tai) writes:

Note: The following is reinserted from the original post for clarification:
|>>ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
|>>: Here's your homework exercise, Scott - write for us, an 
|>>: essay as to why standardized tests *can* be useful - you're 
|>>: free to preface it with a disclaimer, no problem.
|>>
|>>..
|>>
|>>The Tai Standard Test of Intelligence
|>>-------------------------------------
|>>[...]

|>>The posts are the only tangible information one has
|>>about rec.org.mensa posters, and these conclusions 
|>>are based solely on this information.  Cases like
|>>this are when standardized tests are useful...
|>
[...]
|>I think that you have slipped into the cranial rut that so many mensans
|>and pseudo(?)-intellectuals submit to. What measures intelligence.
|>   If you think that the analysis of sentence structure is an effective
|>means by which one can analyze and conclusively summate one's intelligence,
|>then you are sorely mistaken and an exception to your own rule.
|>   The readability quotients of one's literature has a minute if non-
|>existant correlation to one's intelligence (Don't read much psychology
|>do you?). Whether one choose to eloquently express and each every nuance
|>of their literary prose or not is by no means a careful or accurate 
|>indication of their intelligence. 

Ironic that you quoted Tai's disclaimer and yet missed its relevance.  The
post statistics addressed Eric's challenge to find out why standardized tests
CAN be useful.  The statistics presented an objective means to evaluate
intelligence based upon the limited information that was available from
what each poster had written.  The statement "Cases like this are when
standardized tests are useful..." implies that the poster does not accept
that such an analysis properly assesses intelligence.

|>   I think this raises an interesting point within the Mensa culture. I tried
|>to address it in a recent post on the qualities and measures of "global" 
|>intelligence, but I fear I'm already in everyone's killfile 8)

Your classifications of intelligence were, with slight differences in 
nomenclature, the same ones that I had posted just three days earlier.

|>   In any case - I suppose the key phrase of yours Scott is that this is
|>all you have to go on, but that isn't true. The subjective analysis of one's
|>concepts and ideas should carry much more weight than the grammatical 
|>structure with which one's ideas are presented. Although your motivations
|>are meritable, I don't think that these numbers mean a whole lot. Of course,
|>since I came almost last in everything, perhaps it's possible that I do
|>have an IQ of 93. I don't think so however...

Although our own judgements about the intelligence of those posting to 
rec.org.mensa are based upon our perceptions of the posters' concepts
and ideas (and reading comprehension), I do believe that an objective 
measure for intelligence is more widely acceptable than a subjective one.  
Considering the claim that standardized tests are biased against certain 
minorities, I would venture that a subjective test would be even more 
exposed to prejudicial influences.
                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rodney G. Adams
The opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of my employer.
As if you didn't already know that....
"The one serious conviction that a man should have is that nothing is 
to be taken too seriously."                            - Samuel Butler