HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgs1@ra.msstate.edu (jimi strickland)
Subject: random comments..ha ha
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 08:53:34 GMT

  It is very early in the morning here, and I just decided to post somewhere.
  hee hee
  These comments may not have anything to do with what has been discussed
  here, but I felt like sharing them with the group.

  I don't believe vocabulary tests to be an accurate determinant of
  intelligence level.  Someone with a strong vocabulary may be subjected to
  dealing with people with a poor vocabulary.
  Instead of bothering to 'teach' these others 'new' words, he may be
  restricted to using those words that they *do* understand, thereby possibly
  losing a great deal of his vocabulary from unuse.
  On the other hand, an extremely intelligent person may have grown up
  with people with poor vocabularies and never got the chance to develop
  a strong pallette of words to choose from.
  
  I also don't like intelligence tests in which some sort of writing is
  required on a timed basis.  I write very slowly due to having badly
  damaged the wrist of my writing hand.
  I can type extremely fast and accurately, though.  ;-)

  I am curious as to my 'intelligence level.'
  Where might I acquire some sort of test to determine it somewhat accurately?

    -jimi-
From: jcooley@miracle.com (John Cooley)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: questionable cancels?
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 12:59:17 EDT
Organization: Miracle Computer Consultants

skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:

>FYI, according to this news control message, EDWARD LEE
>BALDWIN canceled one of Mike Steiner's messages.  In fact, three
>other messages of his were canceled in the same manner, and all
>from NCSU.EDU, previously abused by the tedious "Scott Tai".
>Mike, did you agree to this cancelation?


  Good snooping, Kjeld!   Maybe NOW we might find out who Scott Tai
  really is!    Way to go!

                                          - John

 ==========================================================================
       John Cooley              Zappa as a waste management engineer: 
                                  "Hey, there, Brother!  Whatcha
    jcooley@miracle.com            doing with that Cosmic Debris?"  

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (james.w.lacey)
Subject: Re: New sins
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:16:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.222058.16966@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>
>Pardon my naivete', but I was under the impression that "sins" were
>defined by their being prohibited by the writings in the Bible.
>What does a separate list of sins accomplish, and how could the
>list of things considered sins change?  And is there a grandfather
>rule?  Would people be pulled out of Heaven because they did things
>that weren't sins when they got there?  Is there an extradition
>agreement?  I can picture the big line at the Pearly Gates, and
>Saint Peter yelling, "Yablonski, John!  Got some bad news for
>you, buddy."
>
>GMS

I think the point of the updated list is just to show some
modern specifics of the general laws from the 10 Commandments, etc.
For example, "forging checks" is on the list of "new" sins, but
IMHO is a clear example of breaking the "thou shalt not steal"
commandment.


-- 
     Jim Lacey  --  my own opinions    
     email:  att!cbnewsl!jlacey  or  jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com
     D'ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous?
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: New sins
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:55:55 GMT
Followup-To: rec.org.mensa

In article <1993Jan12.032905.13035@ncsu.edu>, cjdcosta@eos.ncsu.edu
(CHRISTOPHER J DCOSTA) wrote:
> 
> 
> johnson@sleipnir.pb.wes.mot.com (Mark Johnson) writes:

> >Thank God I was born Protestant! 
> 
> Well at least God's Catholic, thank goodness for that.

I thought that God was Jewish.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|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: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:51:50 GMT
Followup-To: rec.org.mensa

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:
> >In article <mike_steiner-070193104411@192.35.50.131> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
> >>In article <1993Jan6.214524.25582@julian.uwo.ca>, roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca
> >>(Eric Roberts) wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't know of any way to predict performance, what I do know is that 
> >>> IQ tests fail to do so.
> >>
> >>SATs have proven to be a valid predictor of performance in the first year
> >>of college or university.
> >
> >Out of curiosity, Eric, what has been your personal experience with
> >IQ and SAT tests?  Do you have some information about any specific
> >examples of their failures?
> Do you have any of about them being successfull?

You brought up the issue of their not being of any use.  Do you have any
evidence to support your claim?  If you have no evidence, that ends the
discussion and there is no reason for anyone to attempt to rebut the claim.

> >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? 

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|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: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Date: 9 Jan 93 11:57:11 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

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.
-- 
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: roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:39:21 GMT

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.
>> >>>
>> >>>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. 
>
>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?


>+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>|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: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:16:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.133342.1273@altair.selu.edu> bhmd1464@altair.selu.edu writes:

}  According to my memory, the formula for computing IQ was something
}like   mental age * 10 / physical age.  ...

IQ = (mental age / physical age) * 100

}... How is IQ really computed
}or determined?  ...

These days the scores are indicative of your placement with respect to the
general population, usually broken down by age and sex.  The actual
computations can be fairly complex and the raw scores are usually
manipulated so as to yield a desired mean and standard deviation. (Mean
100 and sd 15 approximate what the general public thinks of as "IQ").

The tests have been somewhat refined (and often re-normed) over the years,
but the basic techniques haven't changed much.

}... Can it be done accurately for someone my age (23)?

As accurately as for any other age.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                "If you can't stand solitude,
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483  perhaps others find you boring
Santa Monica, CA  90405                        as well."  -- Mark Twain
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:38:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.160118.6151@HQ.Ileaf.COM> mukesh@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Mukesh Prasad) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.140548.21802@wam.umd.edu> amanda@wam.umd.edu (Me again) writes:
>> In article <01GSYXPOFNKIADDCAK@ccfvx3.draper.com> skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:
>> 
>...
>> 
>> 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
>
>It is quite possible that what makes a person have a high IQ
>may also have negative effects.
>
>Even if there isn't something of this nature from a biochemical
>point of view, it does appear that the person with a lot
>of "smart"s will soon learn that s/he is usually more often right
>than not -- negative effect of this being that s/he will not
>learn to change his or her mind (easily) when wrong.  This will

I've found that learning to play hockey tends to make one more apt
to spend time playing hockey rather than reading than one who does
not learn to play hockey.

>then have a negative effect on the general process
>of learning.

I'm sure this may happen.  However, I would add that, in my personal
experience, I have often found that stupid people, or people that enjoy
thinking less, try to avoid it.  They may substitute guesses, hearsay,
generalizations and incomplete reasoning in order to make their decisions.
You just have to watch politics and read People magazine to see what
appeals to most folks' sensibilities.

I also think that a person who considers themselves to be
intelligent and who has also had their frequency of
being right positively reinforced would also stand the greatest
chance of not being ignored.  Therefore their stubbornness might
be noticed by more people.  Just a guess, there.
>
>Also, almost everybody (at least on this newsgroup) must have
>met people who are clearly very bright, but got too bored
>by the math teacher or by all their friends...

Would that happen more to bright people?  More often than, say, stupid
people with short attention spans?  Or people that were just bored
because they had little interest in required activities?  Or would
the less bright that would be nevertheless bored just not be present
in the class.  The class itself might be a biased sample.

I'm not disagreeing, just curious/thinking out loud.  It might just
be that the bright child bored in class may be simply more noticeable
than those bored for other reasons.
>
>In other words, very high IQs may have various self limiting
>factors involved.
>
>  /Mukesh
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: Evolution n
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:05:00 GMT


>From: Dwight Galster <galster@plains.nodak.edu>
>Message-ID: <C0pE8w.Cv4@ns1.nodak.edu>
>
>The insults about "dumb enough to believe the Bible" are misplaced
>and an unfortunate sign of intolerance.  Belief in evolution is every
>bit as much a matter of faith as anything else.  There are no "proofs"
>on either side

I'm afraid the great majority of biologists and geneticists do not share
your view.  Their view is that the evidence for evolution is
overwhelming, not just probable, or just possible, or just another nice
theory worth considering on an equal basis with creationism.
I sense that you, as a statistician, have rationalized that
50/50 is a good starting point, because neither theory has been
proven 100.0000000...%, and because you feel pressure from
your religion.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts)
Subject: Re: Re^2: IQ Test?
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:40:52 GMT

In article <4366@novavax.UUCP> mitch@novavax.UUCP (Mitch Silverman) writes:
>roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts) writes:
>
>>                               The vocabulary of the English language
>>is too large for any single person to know a significant portion
>>of it.
>
>Definitions, please?  Evidence?  What do you mean by 'a significant
>portion', anyway--5%?  50%
>
>I know a significant portion of the vocabulary of the English
>language.  This is self-obvious--I can think of no better
>criterion for 'significance' in this context than "sufficient
>for useful, intelligible, and enjoyable communication." 
>Anyone else?
The vocabulary that is used for intelligent and enjoyable communication,
is often not the vocabulary that is used on IQ tests..
What I meant was that no matter how intelligent you are, there will
be a lot of vocabulary that you will not know.    

>I think that most people on the Net know a significant portion
>of the vocabulary of English also.  The Net has a higher
>percentage than in Mensa, from what I can tell--I think having
>an Internet address should be considered prima facie proof of
>eligiblity for Mensa. 8-}  (If you feel this warrants a flame,
>think for a second--the correlation between "genius-level
>intelligence" and genius-level IQ--which are not by any
>stretch of the imagination identical--is probably pretty close
>to the correlation I suggest here.)
I agree with the above completely.:)

>
>Prove that I am wrong--or at least justify your statement above.
>I find it ridiculous--at best.
Prove that 1+1=2.
The English language has more than 100000 words, an everage person knows
less than 10000 of those, is that a great number in your opinion?
 
>
>(And yes, I used to be in Mensa.  Why did I not renew my membership?
>It was a waste of money, frankly--I'd rather pay as a guest for the
>parties I went to.)
What is this supposed to prove? (that you were in Mensa)

>
>Mitchell L. Silverman              | As Voltaire never said, "I
>Student, New College of            | disagree with what you say,
>the University of South Florida    | but will defend to the death
>Reply-to: mitch@cfraix.cfr.usf.edu | your right to say it."


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 04:09:46 GMT

In article <mike_steiner-070193104411@192.35.50.131> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.214524.25582@julian.uwo.ca>, roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca
>(Eric Roberts) wrote:
>
>> I don't know of any way to predict performance, what I do know is that 
>> IQ tests fail to do so.
>
>SATs have proven to be a valid predictor of performance in the first year
>of college or university.

What does first year of university predict? It predicts absolutely nothing.
I have seen just as many people who did poorly in the first year (since
they were bored to death) and later did very well, as those who did
well in the first year (in a high school like enviroment) and very
poorly later.
Organization: Florida Central of University
Date: Friday, 8 Jan 1993 10:22:16 EST
From: <FDMWINK@UCF1VM.BITNET> "Larry Wink"
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: IQ Test?


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.

 --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: 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 20:44:24 GMT

In article <Jan.8.02.20.12.1993.3771@romulus.rutgers.edu> clong@romulus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.234810.25718@julian.uwo.ca>, Eric Roberts writes:
>
>> A billion years is not a long time at all, considering the time it would
>> take for the species to reproduce, the mutations take effect (and for
>> favorable to occur).
>
i]>A billion years is a very long time.  Make some rough guesses as to
>the average generation length G and to the amount of variation V per
>generation, and consider (1+V)^{10^9/G}.
>
Not a long time for the kind of miracles that you claim.

>> Sure there may be some improvements, but every time a fav. mut.
>> occurs in one area, the propability of another to occur that would
>> still improve the system is smaller. 
>
>I don't understand what you're saying.  Consider organisms with a
>very short generation length, bacteria and viruses.  Where do you think
>the AIDS virus came from?  It wasn't around 100 years ago.  How about
How do you know that? Maybe we were simply unable to detect it.
 
>the drug-resistant strains of various diseases, e.g. tuberculosis?
>That's evolution that's occurred recently.
>
>>> You are aware of the recent bird migration results, right?
>
>> I do not know what exactly you are reffering to... Be more specific.
>
>Of course you don't.  Scientists have recently discovered that a
>certain species of bird has changed it's migration path (to a more
>amenable destination).  Since this is genetic in birds, that's another
>recent example of evolution.
>
>If you're a creationist, consider Adam and Eve, and then consider
>the diversity among humans today, e.g. Asians, Africans, Europeans.
>How did this come about if evolution didn't occur?
>-- 
>Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ 08807-2618
>
>Score: 0, Diff: 1, clong killed by a Harvard Math Team on  1
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Evolution n
Date: 9 Jan 93 11:53:11 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <C0JqEA.FvL@world.std.com>, Ken Kirksey writes:

> Which only provides evidence of natural selection and differentiation
> within species.  It says nothing about the mechanisms that 
> produced speciation.

Bullshit; drug-resistant TB is genetically different from normal TB.
Now extrapolate over a billion years.  If you want me to show you
speciation in action, give me a time machine or wait a million years.

Other things off the top of my head:

  Polydactyl atavism in horses, showing strong evidence that they are
  decendents of early horses found in the fossil records.

  The vast fossil bed, containing quite a few transitional forms.

  The abundance of marsupials in Australia.

  The chicken tooth-forming experiments of Kollar and Fisher.

> I dated a veterinarian (avian specialist) for a year or so, and migration
> was one of the topics I discussed with her.  No one knows for sure
> how birds determine migration path, and it has certainly never been proven
> that it is "inherited knowledge".   My ex seemed to think that the best
> explanation had to do with the earth's magnetic field and certain
> sensory organs located in the bird's head.

The underlying mechanism is irrelevant; it only matters that it's an
inherited characteristic that's been changed.

> I don't remember the details.  Suffice to say that no one have ever
> proven that such knowledge was inherited.

Experiments were performed where birds of both types were raised in
captivity.  When they would take off to fly, the birds would fly
off in the appropriate directions.  It *is* inherited.

It's truly sad that evolution is questioned when the evidence is
absolutely overwhelming.  Evolution is a *fact*.  One of the greatest
ideas in the history of mankind, and most people know very little
about it.
-- 
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