Joining MENSA - How to Become a Member

[Art]

Thats strange...I have never heard anyone make a negative comment about Mensa except the memebers. You know, like Isaac Asimov...

lol what's really strange is you saying that directly following a negative post from a non-member of Mensa. Seriously though I have no idea how well Mensa is organised and ran in the US but British Mensa is a pretty professional club.

p.s. Asimov hated Mensa so much he was their international president. I don't know if you have read his autobiographical works but Asimov was by his own admission a supreme egotist. His supposed criticism of mensa comes from a comment he made (probably in jest) that people in the club argued with him.

 

[Art]

I don't think the complaint is that its an elitist organisation. I think the point is that its main function is to stroke the egos of its members.

It certainly isn't to stroke member's egos. If that was the case why be a small fish in a big pool? Better to join a club full of dopes and lord it over them.

I don't know of any prominent scientist who was or is a member of mensa.

Which maybe just proves the point it is not about ego. Most members of Mensa don't publish the fact in case they are accused of showing off.

The requirement says nothing about how much you actually have accomplished. It is just about your ability to solve silly puzzles.

Mensa doesn't claim to be about accomplishment not least because individuals' ideas of what constitutes accomplishment are so varied it would be impossible to quantify in any meaningful way. As for 'silly puzzles' IQ tests measure your potential ability for problem solving, a useful skill in all facets of life. Mensa literature is the first to acknowledge that this is only a part of what makes a person and freely acknowledges that it says nothing about their application or emotional stability etc..

I have never taken an IQ test, but I doubt that I would be held out of mensa. I got a 1530 on the SAT's which is well over the 99th percentile.

So why not try and join then? At least then you could evaluate it first hand and if you don't like what you find you could then criticize it from a position of strength.

There are probably people who complain about mensa just out of soreness, but that doesn't mean that is always the reason, even when the person complaining is below the requirements. Even the one practical function you gave for belonging to mensa is better served by the internet. Actually, probably much better served because if you want to build an airplane, most of the people you will meet at mensa do not know how to build one. They could be ESL teachers, for instance.

I don't understand why people who are not members feel the need to criticize Mensa? With so many clubs in the world why single out Mensa? The club is totally apolitical and never makes any opinionated statements on anything so what is there to criticise? I think you must agree the suspicion is that there is a large slice of begrudgery involved?

 

[Evo]

Because MENSA members have a reputation for being obnoxious, pretentious snobs. The people that join and "stay" seem to actually be insecure, and have a need for external validation. Yes, I could have been a member, I was tested at age 11 at my teacher's insistence, I was told my IQ was 185. I still think it was only 158, whatever, I just read a lot when I was little, think logically, and do very well on tests. Intellectually, I can't hold a candle to most of the people here.

The school was a bit freaked out, called my parents in and told them they did not recommend me staying in the public school system as they didn't have programs that could challenge me. (this after years of taking my books away from me so I wouldn't get ahead of the rest of the class) They gave my parents brochures to special schools for the "academically able", you had to have a 140 minimum IQ to even be considered. I didn't want to go to one, I was jumped around, completed high school at the age of 14, went to Europe to visit family for a year, came back and started college at 16.

 

[JamesU]

: you could join MENSA and kick bill gates right in the face!

 

[honestrosewater]

hmm... y'know, if you've got one of those W bumper stickers you could just pull it off and stick it back on upside down.

Eek! Fortunately, they aren't clever enough to think of this on their own.

Just joking, Bush people [/size]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The school was a bit freaked out, called my parents in and told them they did not recommend me staying in the public school system

Mine got the same call but for different reasons.

 

[hitssquad]

Cattell B - 148
Culture Free - 133
Ravens Advanced Matrices 148
Ravens Standard Matrices -131
Wechsler Scales - 132

Here is a handy IQ-conversion calulator:
davidpbrown.co.uk/psychology/iq-conversion.html

 

[Evo]

Mine got the same call but for different reasons.

It's the gray skin...

 

[Math Is Hard]

Eek! Fortunately, they aren't clever enough to think of this on their own.

Just joking, Bush people [/size]

Thank you! I had the set up -- but just couldn't quite find the punch line!

Overall, I feel ambivalent about Mensa. It is a social club, and for some people it is very meaningful and it seems to enhance their lives. I have several friends who have joined and they have told me that the main reason they continue membership is that it looks good on their resumes. If it helps them professionally(or even socially), I think that it's valuable, and I am glad they maintain membership. For people who are joining out of some type of self-esteem issue, I think that this is unfortunate, because they may not find the rewards or respect in life that they feel are due to them based on their "special" test scores.

Personally, I've always wished there were some "good deeds" club where I could apply for membership. I am much more concerned with my goodness quotient than my intelligence quotient. OK, they'd probably reject my first few applications, but I can always improve, right?

 

[Evo]

Overall, I feel ambivalent about Mensa. It is a social club, and for some people it is very meaningful and it seems to enhance their lives. I have several friends who have joined and they have told me that the main reason they continue membership is that it looks good on their resumes. If it helps them professionally(or even socially), I think that it's valuable, and I am glad they maintain membership.

As for employment, I can't imagine an employer that would give preference to someone that would list being a MENSA member on their resume, it will more likely get their resume tossed into the round file. It means nothing to an employer. They need to go out and read about resumes and what counts and what doesn't. I've been on the hiring end of a Fortune 500 company and stuff like that isn't even looked at.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I don't think any of them mention it in the experience or qualification section of their resumes, but they put it down under "Hobbies and Interests" at the end of the document. Still, they seem to think it gives them an edge.

Whether or not that's true - who knows? The HR folks may not even read that far.

 

[Evo]

I don't think any of them mention it in the experience or qualification section of their resumes, but they put it down under "Hobbies and Interests" at the end of the document. Still, they seem to think it gives them an edge.

Whether or not that's true - who knows? The HR folks may not even read that far.

Professional resumes really should not even list "hobbies and interests", that's mostly filler for people just out of school that have no real experience and isn't even considered. It just looks better if you have something typed to the end of a page, half page long resumes don't look good. And maybe the HR person shares those interests and reads that and calls you in because of it, possible, but realistically, not likely to land you a job.

 

[hitssquad]

The exaggeratedness of ultra-high childhood Stanford-Binet scores

I was tested at age 11 at my teacher's insistence, I was told my IQ was 185.

http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/Outsiders.html

--
CONCEPT MASTERY SCORES ACCORDING TO CHILDHOOD STANFORD-BINET IQ

IQ      N   CMT-T 
135-139 41  114.2 
140-149 344 131.8 
150-159 200 136.5 
160-169 70  146.2 
170+    48  155.8

--


hiqnews.megafoundation.org/Definition_of_IQ.html

--
Wechsler tests yield somewhat lower scores at the higher levels of IQ even after correcting for the 15/16 ratio of their standard deviations. Our own investigations of the relationship between Stanford-Binet IQs and Wechsler IQs suggests that a Wechsler IQ of 155 would correspond to a Stanford-Binet IQ of about 173.
--

 

[Art]

Because MENSA members have a reputation for being obnoxious, pretentious snobs. The people that join and "stay" seem to actually be insecure, and have a need for external validation. Yes, I could have been a member, I was tested at age 11 at my teacher's insistence, I was told my IQ was 185. I still think it was only 158, whatever, I just read a lot when I was little, think logically, and do very well on tests. Intellectually, I can't hold a candle to most of the people here.

It seems strange to me that somebody with such a high IQ should hold such a prejudiced opinion about a group of people they have never met. The same accusations could be levelled against absolutely any club or even country in the world. By definition unless you are actually a member of a club, the members outsiders are most likely to hear are the loud, pushy, obnoxious ones, the silent majority being silent.

Most people in the US have probably never even met a member of Mensa as only 1 in every 6000 people in the US are members. A somewhat larger number than frequents most people's circle of friends and aquaintances and so it would seem that the reputation you speak of is based on hearsay and prejudice.

I'm not suggesting this necessarily applies to you Evo but I do think that perhaps some people who have tested highly once in a DIY IQ test are reluctant to take further validated tests, such as would be required to join mensa, in case they do not do as well as previously. This seems to me to show insecurity on their part and is evidenced by the number of people who decry membership of Mensa and yet take every on line IQ test they can find. If they are really that contemptuous of IQ why bother?

Most people who stay in mensa are there because they enjoy interacting with people who are their intellectual peers as they find the company challenging and interesting. One of the strongest correlations in couples is intelligence; far more so than looks, so is it logical to suggest that people in the top 2% IQ category should not band together in some way such as Mensa?

The school was a bit freaked out, called my parents in and told them they did not recommend me staying in the public school system as they didn't have programs that could challenge me. (this after years of taking my books away from me so I wouldn't get ahead of the rest of the class) They gave my parents brochures to special schools for the "academically able", you had to have a 140 minimum IQ to even be considered. I didn't want to go to one, I was jumped around, completed high school at the age of 14, went to Europe to visit family for a year, came back and started college at 16.

One of the aims of mensa is to provide a support network for gifted children to assist them through what can be a difficult period leading to maturity, to ensure they grow up to realize their potential without becoming socially maladjusted due to the 'barriers' a high IQ can create between them, their teachers and their less 'gifted' playmates.
From the short brief you supplied about your own childhood it sounds as if you would have benefitted from such support?

As for employment, I can't imagine an employer that would give preference to someone that would list being a MENSA member on their resume, it will more likely get their resume tossed into the round file. It means nothing to an employer. They need to go out and read about resumes and what counts and what doesn't. I've been on the hiring end of a Fortune 500 company and stuff like that isn't even looked at.

Obviously it depends on the position the employer is trying to fill but you are not seriously suggesting that a proven ability for problem solving (the key attribute for a manager), should preclude a candidate seeking a management postion? This is prejudice taken to the extreme and if a fortune 500 company HR department exercises a policy of tossing out applications from people with high IQs then senior management seriously needs to look at their HR staff or they will not be a fortune 500 company for very long.

 

[honestrosewater]

Did anyone else read the Outsiders article?
Um, I'm especially interested in whether anyone else has adopted the 'marginal strategy' and still managed to be happy, and if you've spent a lot of time looking for other people 'like you' (and has anyone found them? ).

Oh, and about being in special programs for gifted youth... I was moved from first grade into second and put into the gifted program, and I absolutely loved it! In elementary school, gifted was one day a week (at another school). There was a theme each year (Oceanography, Natural Phenomena, Middle Ages & Renaissance), and we did all sorts of experiments, special projects, went on field trips, and so on, really immersing ourselves in the work. If anyone is worried about putting their kids into these programs, it was a great experience for me, and everyone else in the program seemed to enjoy it just as much as I did. I looked forward to gifted all week long and had no social problems at all in elementary school.
I decided to attend a normal middle school, where gifted was a regular, year-long class replacing Reading and Physical Education. We mostly just read books, and if you weren't interested the book, it was quite boring. My regular classes and even my advanced classes were boring. And when I started having problems at home, school was the first thing that I gave up on. I was kicked out of gifted and eventually expelled and sent to a school for students with behavior problems. When I finally resolved the problems at home and returned to regular school, I was put into remedial classes (presumably, because of my behavior history).
I managed to suffer through the rest of 8th grade, but was still placed in normal or remedial classes in high school - covering things I had already learned years before - seriously. I also missed the chance to choose my electives, so I was in classes, like drama and home economics, which I either had no interest in or already knew about. My algebra teacher managed to get me placed into a few higher classes, but after a couple weeks, I was caught up to everyone else and the pace of the class was still too slow. I was bored out of my mind in school. I started only going to school on Fridays to take the tests and see my friends. I thought maybe if they saw that I could ace the class without needing to actually attend class, they might finally wake up and move me to more appropriate classes. But it didn't happen, and I falied because of my poor attendance. Being now two years behind, with no hint of things improving, and with my still shaky situation at home, I dropped out of high school as soon as possible (on my 16th birthday) to start working.
I still loved learning, but I could do a better job on my own. So being challenged in school can make a huge difference; I went from loving and excelling in school to hating and failing at it. Heck, I'm still worried about not being able to find appropriate classes when I return to school and wasting my time and money going through a system that's inferior to my own and just doesn't work for me. Anywho, long story short: appropriate programs in school were a lifesaver for me.

 

[Smurf]

I'm reading all these people talk about their school stuff and how they were in special programs... I was never in a special program! I was never even in a system that HAD any special programs at all. My story is one of small simplistic low-funded education systems no one was set apart from anyone else and if you didn't get good grades it was because you weren't capable of doing the work. (HA!)
I basically failed at school from the very start... and have only now in my last year of high school managed to conform enough to the system to struggle through with half-decent grades (More B's than C's and nothing below a C - for the first time in my life).
Allegedly (and I say this because I don't remember) I was a pretty good student up until about grade 3. Then they started asking me to memorize stuff. They didn't understand why I could do grade 6 problem solving but couldn't tell them that 9x6=54 without working it out (still can't - I worked it out just now). Grade 9 my parents decided that they'd had enough of Canada, so we moved to Ghana in West Africa. Homeschooled for a year, that was the worst. Then they tried putting me in a Private School on the British System when we moved to the capital. There were 40 kids in my class (bigger than the college courses I will be taking in September) I don't think I ever even learned half my teachers names and certainly didn't learn most of the work, so I failed grade 6, but they let me slide because I seemed capable just 'wasn't applying myself'. I was bored stiff, especially with Math and English. If there's one thing I hate it's repetition and they decided the best way for me to learn was to do the same problems over, and over, and over, and over, ad infinitum. I vaguely recall being put in a special English program for 'underachievers' because that was my worst class.

France wasn't much better, I'd gone from super-large to super-small. The entire faculty was a single digit and my classes never had more than 15 pupils in them, sometimes half that. Again, bored to crap, although I had the greatest Physics and Math teacher ever (wait for it...) Tony Woodcock.
He's the one that first got me interested in the sciences, and I may have done better if they'd had the facilities to actually let me move at my own speed, but the school was waaaay under-funded.

Unlike some (Most?) of you I wasn't much of a reader in my early childhood, didn't really get into it until I discovered (ahhh, I'm embarassed about this) Pierres Anthony, around grade 8. I fell in love with Fiction then, although I don't read Anthony any more.

As for MENSA:
I for one would Looooooove to be in MENSA. Just the chance to be able to analyze the atmosphere it creates, pick it apart, you know? but I'm sure I'll figure out a way to do it without actually joining (I'm very charismatic). Or who knows, I might actually get in.

...

Probably get bored of it after a month or two though, move onto something newer.

 

[honestrosewater]

I'm reading all these people talk about their school stuff and how they were in special programs... [snip] ...He's the one that first got me interested in the sciences, and I may have done better if they'd had the facilities to actually let me move at my own speed, but the school was waaaay under-funded.

Yeah, that sucks. Gifted in elementary school totally rocked - and I got to do special things in regular classes too, like grade papers, work on my own extra projects, and such. It made a huge difference. Did you enjoy learning outside of school?

The same thing happened with me. I took biology in 7th grade and was bored with it, but when I took it again in 9th grade, it was my favorite class - at one point, it was the only class I went to. The teacher made it interesting and moved at a fast pace (I remember everyone else hating the class though).

Unlike some (Most?) of you I wasn't much of a reader in my early childhood, didn't really get into it until I discovered (ahhh, I'm embarassed about this) Pierres Anthony, around grade 8. I fell in love with Fiction then, although I don't read Anthony any more.

I wasn't a big reader until I left school. I think Greek mythology and poetry were the only things I read outside of school. Something about Ancient Greece fascinated me. I spent most of my free time writing, creating, designing, and building things. I still don't like most fiction but read tons of nonfiction.

 

[Smurf]

Yeah, that sucks. Gifted in elementary school totally rocked - and I got to do special things in regular classes too, like grade papers, work on my own extra projects, and such. It made a huge difference. Did you enjoy learning outside of school?

I can't really say I did a lot of learning outside of school early on. Probably the most learning I did pre-9th grade was learning the Trumpet in Band class. Can't really recall much of anything else, I was a troubled kid, didn't really understand how to occupy myself, got bored a lot and made trouble.

I never got to do anything special.

The same thing happened with me. I took biology in 7th grade and was bored with it, but when I took it again in 9th grade, it was my favorite class - at one point, it was the only class I went to. The teacher made it interesting and moved at a fast pace (I remember everyone else hating the class though).

Hehe, I remember loving classes that everyone else hated too.

I wasn't a big reader until I left school. I think Greek mythology and poetry were the only things I read outside of school. Something about Ancient Greece fascinated me. I spent most of my free time writing, creating, designing, and building things. I still don't like most fiction but read tons of nonfiction.

Yeah I fell out of reading fiction last summer really, I'm reading lots of nonfiction now, but I try to sneak in a Terry Prachett once in while just because I enjoy his books so much.

The mythology that I'm really into is the occult stuff, mainly about the monotheistic religions. Greek and Roman kind of led me into it, but that's what I'm reading and writing about now. Fascinating stuff.

 

[honestrosewater]

The mythology that I'm really into is the occult stuff, mainly about the monotheistic religions. Greek and Roman kind of led me into it, but that's what I'm reading and writing about now. Fascinating stuff.

Pfft, I scoff at your one measly god. The Greeks have a god for everything. And as the famous historian Eddie Izzard noted,

The Romans came along with their gods that they had borrowed from the Greeks. They invaded Greece, conquered them and stole all their gods... and renamed them with Roman names, ‘cause the Roman gods before that were kind of crap, you know - Geoff, the god of biscuits, and Simon, the god of hairdos…

Romans.

Christianity is the only monotheistic religion I'm really familiar with, and it doesn't impress me as much. I think the angels, fallen and otherwise, are pretty cool and the whole God v. Satan thing is about as grand as it gets. Jesus and redemption is compelling, but I think looking at Jesus as a regular man is more interesting. Revelation and Psalms were my favorite books. Do you have a favorite story, book, aspect?

 

[Smurf]

Pfft, I scoff at your one measly god. The Greeks have a god for everything. And as the famous historian Eddie Izzard noted,
Romans.

Occultism, Demonology, Necromancy, ect. There's so much good fiction built up around this stuff, and it's really quite interesting because it all has backing in historical beliefs. Look, just go watch Constantine, read some Anne Rice books. It's all great stuff.

Christianity is the only monotheistic religion I'm really familiar with, and it doesn't impress me as much. I think the angels, fallen and otherwise, are pretty cool and the whole God v. Satan thing is about as grand as it gets.

Yeah if you just take it at face value, but Greek mythology is pretty boring too if you just list the deities, what they stand for and who's related to who isn't it! It's mythology, it's meant to be explored.

Do you have a favorite story, book, aspect?

My favorite stories are the ones I write myself

 

[honestrosewater]

Occultism, Demonology, Necromancy, ect. There's so much good fiction built up around this stuff, and it's really quite interesting because it all has backing in historical beliefs. Look, just go watch Constantine, read some Anne Rice books. It's all great stuff.

I saw Constantine and didn't like it. I think I liked The Omen (does someone get killed in the street by a big pane of glass?). Anyway, I said the angels were interesting. And Greeks believed their myths too.

Yeah if you just take it at face value, but Greek mythology is pretty boring too if you just list the deities, what they stand for and who's related to who isn't it! It's mythology, it's meant to be explored.

What, I was saying nice things. I give you the angels and demons, Good v. Evil fighting for men's souls, the story of Jesus, and redemption/salvation. But I can't think of any other stories or concepts that I like. Maybe the immaculate conception. (I heard a funny story, don't know if it's true, that someone mistranslated 'young girl' as 'virgin girl', and that's how the immaculate conception was born.) Maybe Catholicism has more interesting stories than the ones I'm familiar with.

My favorite stories are the ones I write myself

Cool. What do you write about? Do you stick with the existing myths or make up your own?

 

[Sir_Deenicus]

I'm sorry, but what does "higher frequencies" mean??

What is high&noble about the ability to solve silly, logical puzzles?
(I'm quite good at them myself, but I don't regard that as my best asset.)

I apologize for the late reply arildno, I have been a bit busy and have been unable to keep pace with this relatively fast moving thread. This post will likely be out of place but I feel obligated to explain myself.

What I mean rather, is that I feel IQ tests are as good a metric for intelligence as height is for the ability to dunk. One need not be tall to dunk nor does one need be intelligent - in the wholest sense - to be posessed of a high IQ. Sure many tall people will tend to be able to dunk but not all; nor in fact are all dunkers necessarily tall.

As for higher frequencies? I meant that those we place as Geniuses, the Einsteins and Galois, would likely not score phenemenomly high on an IQ test. Their mode and priority of thought would likely be quite different.. Enough so, that it seems silly to me to assume that a test made for and by people who think "normally" would be appropriate for a measure of their "intelligence".

This apple is the worst tasting orange I have ever eaten.

I feel intelligence to be an intangible concept, every bit so as love or wisdom; things whose quantification would result in an ambigous and very silly number. Of these, that we feel intelligence is a quantifiable concept whose measurement is not silly (say like an Goodness quotient?) is likely a reflection of our knowledge based society.

 

[arildno]

I feel intelligence to be an intangible concept, every bit so as love or wisdom; things whose quantification would result in an ambigous and very silly number.

To that, I whole-heartedly agree.
The quantifying process is very useful whenever it is meaningful to set it in motion..

 

[hitssquad]

Getting into Mensa when your true Wechsler IQ is below 130

I for one would Looooooove to be in MENSA. Just the chance to be able to analyze the atmosphere it creates, pick it apart, you know? but I'm sure I'll figure out a way to do it without actually joining (I'm very charismatic). Or who knows, I might actually get in.

You don't need to qualify for Mensa in terms of g in order to get in. All you need is a qualifying score. One can continuously repeat the Mensa exam indefinitely. One can take numerous other exams. Only one qualifying score is needed, no matter how many times one is tested.

 

[Smurf]

Cool. What do you write about?

Lots of things, I don't stick to mythology.

Do you stick with the existing myths or make up your own?

Why would I write stories someone has already written? Of course I make up my own stuff, but it's all based on this mythology and is entirely plausible (should you believe the mythology it would appear entirely plausible with your own beliefs) at least that's the goal.

You don't need to qualify for Mensa in terms of g in order to get in. All you need is a qualifying score. One can continuously repeat the Mensa exam indefinitely. One can take numerous other exams. Only one qualifying score is needed, no matter how many times one is tested.

Yeah I was thinking about that, after a little studying I'm sure I could fake a higher IQ.

 

[hitssquad]

How many unqualified Mensans are there

Yeah I was thinking about that, after a little studying I'm sure I could fake a higher IQ.

I meant that IQ scores are probabilistic. They naturally vary. Theoretically, any given person of any given IQ can get into Mensa. I don't imagine it would be too hard for a person with a +1.5σ g (.5σ short of the Mensa threshold) to obtain a Mensa-qualifying score by taking multiple tests. (If your SAT score doesn't qualify, then try the Mensa test, or vice-versa).

An alternative method of selection that might keep out many of the pseudo-qualifiers like the ones who are now members of Mensa would be to require multiple recent pre-registered testings (so that test scores can't be hand-selected) and an averaging of those scores.

 

[Entropy]

I got 122, but I was cooking diner while I took it.

 

[Art]

I meant that IQ scores are probabilistic. They naturally vary. Theoretically, any given person of any given IQ can get into Mensa. I don't imagine it would be too hard for a person with a +1.5σ g (.5σ short of the Mensa threshold) to obtain a Mensa-qualifying score by taking multiple tests. (If your SAT score doesn't qualify, then try the Mensa test, or vice-versa).

An alternative method of selection that might keep out many of the pseudo-qualifiers like the ones who are now members of Mensa would be to require multiple recent pre-registered testings (so that test scores can't be hand-selected) and an averaging of those scores.

The Mensa supervised test is nothing like the on-line tests. There are at least a couple of hundred questions broken into categories many of which are not multiple choice and so 'guessing' enough right answers to meaningfully change your score, although theoretically possible (as in enough monkeys with enough typewriters writing a classic) it is highly unlikely.

 

[hitssquad]

The origins of the probabilism inherent in IQ testing, and its implications

The Mensa supervised test is [...] not multiple choice and so 'guessing' enough right answers to meaningfully change your score [...] is highly unlikely.

Various Mensa chapters accept scores from tests other than Mensa supervised tests. All IQ tests are probabilistic. Even if Mensa has created one that is not probabilistic, a 120-something IQ person might take other tests and eventually get in by selecting his best score from among those.

Guessing is not the primary mechanism for IQ test score variance. People's g stengths actually go up and down from day to day and intraday. The tests are normed on populations whose members are scattered in respect to good-g moments and bad-g moments. Also, no IQ test is culture free. Some tests will give you unfair advantage because of your particular individual knowledge base, and some tests will give you unfair disadvantage. Finally, no IQ test is neutral in terms of the profile of mental abilities it taps. If a given test matches your profile better than it matches the profile of the average member of the normed population, you will be at an unfair advantage. The opposite holds as well where a given test might be an abnormally poor match for your ability profile.

For these three reasons, all IQ tests are probabilistic. If you take multiple IQ tests and hand-pick from the results your single best score, it will likely be overpredictive of your typical g-strength relative to that of any given normed population whose individual variations averaged out to a more reliable picture of that populations g-strength curve.

If, one the other hand, you average your results on multiple tests, you should improve the reliability of prediction of your typical g-strength over that provided by a single test.

 

[honestrosewater]

I don't remember much about my test, but it was only the test admistrator and me. It was all verbal; She would ask a question, I answered (or arranged cards in a certain order or such), and she would ask why I chose that answer; It felt more like a conversation than a test, and you had to explain your reasoning. If they actually take your explanations into account, it should be even more difficult to get false positives on such a test. If you did guess, you would have to lie about it.
The only question I remember was, 'Who discovered America?' I would have answered Christopher Columbus (it was first grade), but I couldn't remember his name for the life of me. I think I drove her crazy going through everything I knew about him and the voyage. She even asked me later in the test if could remember, but I couldn't - until after the test, of course. It really bothered me. I even asked my teacher to tell her that I had remembered. Eh, I guess it still bothers me. Stupid Christopher Columbus.

 

[hitssquad]

Technical issues in the administration of differential-psychological instruments

It was all verbal; She would ask a question, I answered (or arranged cards in a certain order or such), and she would ask why I chose that answer; It felt more like a conversation than a test, and you had to explain your reasoning. If they actually take your explanations into account, it should be even more difficult to get false positives on such a test.

The explanation might not have contributed to the test score. The intructions for the tester might have required asking the child to give some explanation for his particular ordering of the cards, without the particulars of the explanation being taken into account in the scoring.

By the way, card arranging is normally considered a performance item, not a verbal item.


I googled for the above IQ-test question and came up with this:
http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/Articles/Using%20Test%20Results%20to%20Support%20Clinical%20Judgment.html

--
Some highly gifted children refuse to respond if a test question is too easy. They think it is a "trick question" and read many deeper meanings into the question than are helpful (Lovecky, 1994). They may get depressed IQ scores because of knowing too much about a subject rather than too little. For example, Melody Wood, who assesses highly gifted children in Maine, asked a girl who discovered America. The girl thought a long time and then said she didn’t know. When the test was over, Melody asked her the question again and she replied, "I know it wasn’t Christopher Columbus. That theory was disproven, but I just can’t remember who it was." We recommend that examiners explain to children that some of the questions were designed for much younger children and will be very, very easy [...]
--


I see at least two issues here. One is that of deciding what really constitutes legitimate common knowledge, and another is that of the testee's need to know at what ability level a given test item is aimed. These are issues that it may be productive to address in the science of ability testing.

I guess it still bothers me.

Performance variance on individual items usually contributes to very little variance in one's overall score. The test administrator gave you multiple chances likely because she simply wanted to make sure you had been assessed as accurately as possible. And as I implied in my previous message to this thread, your performance is being gauged against a normed population whose members are also are not going to have perfect memory recall. Thinking about that population of hundreds or thousands of kids that the test was normed on, it is perhaps easy to realize that probably many of those kids similarly knew the Chris Columbus answer but their memory failed them. Also your memory did not fail you on many other of the knowledge items, but undoubtedly there were kids in the normed population who knew the correct answers but whose memories did fail them. Every one of their long-term-memory-retrieval failures pushed your own (subtest and fullscale) scores up a little higher.

 

[honestrosewater]

By the way, card arranging is normally considered a performance item, not a verbal item.

Sorry, I meant it was administered orally, as opposed to in writing.

I googled for the above IQ-test question and came up with this:
http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/Articles/Using%20Test%20Results%20to%20Support%20Clinical%20Judgment.html

I read that article yesterday, trying to find out which test I was given.

I see at least two issues here. One is that of deciding what really constitutes legitimate common knowledge, and another is that of the testee's need to know at what ability level a given test item is aimed. These are issues that it may be productive to address in the science of ability testing.

Looking back, I think my score may have been affected more by my not really taking the test 'seriously'. They tried to put me at ease, saying this lady is just going to talk to you, don't be nervous, just be yourself, etc. So I wasn't in test-taking mode or thinking about the consequences of the test. I don't think I even understood what an IQ test was. Well, I don't remember enough to say more, but I'm pretty sure I would approach the test differently now.

Performance variance on individual items usually contributes to very little variance in one's overall score. The test administrator gave you multiple chances likely because she simply wanted to make sure you had been assessed as accurately as possible. And as I implied in my previous message to this thread, your performance is being gauged against a normed population whose members are also are not going to have perfect memory recall. Thinking about that population of hundreds or thousands of kids that the test was normed on, it is perhaps easy to realize that probably many of those kids similarly knew the Chris Columbus answer but their memory failed them. Also your memory did not fail you on many other of the knowledge items, but undoubtedly there were kids in the normed population who knew the correct answers but whose memories did fail them. Every one of their long-term-memory-retrieval failures pushed your own (subtest and fullscale) scores up a little higher.

Right, I understand, that's not what bothers me. I don't care much about how I did compared to others; I mean, it tells me some things, but it's not how I normally judge myself. Not doing as well as I could have or as well as possible is what bothers me. But anyway, enough about me. The outsiders article just kind of rewoke something in me; I didn't mean to bore everyone with my life story.

 

[outsider]

140 and up is near-genius/genius level.
In some countries apearantly Mensa members can get special credit cards and insurance. A friend of mine suggests that to quell an ignorant population all Mensa members should be issued a firearm and a liscence to shoot people for being idiots.

i don't mean to take the previous post too literally, but some of those considered to be crazy were simply genius unrecognized... (and vice versa)

 

[Critical_Pedagogy]

Ok my first post.

So with all the "geniuses" we have in the world, we still can't protect ourselves from asteroids, our technology is still childish when measured against reality, we still live on the same planet for millions of years, we still use natural resources as our primary fuel, we still go to war against our own kind based on lies, we elect IDIOTs to power, ect. . . ect. . . .

I wonder what all these "geniuses" are doing for the rest of the idiot-humans. My guess is they are using their brains to get rich, and they don't care about improving the race. Humans, to me, are not intelligent lifeforms.

 

[Smurf]

Quit whining and get a job.

 

[Daminc]

Intelligence has nothing to do with 'morality', 'ethics' 'common sense' etc and that goes for 'geniuses' as well.

Consider the last 100 years or so and look at the advances we've made in science. Science has to develop progressively and we're bound to make mistakes along the way :)

 

[outsider]

Ok my first post.

So with all the "geniuses" we have in the world, we still can't protect ourselves from asteroids, our technology is still childish when measured against reality, we still live on the same planet for millions of years, we still use natural resources as our primary fuel, we still go to war against our own kind based on lies, we elect IDIOTs to power, ect. . . ect. . . .

I wonder what all these "geniuses" are doing for the rest of the idiot-humans. My guess is they are using their brains to get rich, and they don't care about improving the race. Humans, to me, are not intelligent lifeforms.

i believe the C students are the ones who hire the A students to do their bidding... but they get paid really well, so I guess you are right... they are using their brains to make money just like most people, it's just that they have more brain capacity so probably get paid more... if only there were a study that compared earnings & iq...

 

[hitssquad]

if only there were a study that compared earnings & iq...

"[...]the correlation between IQ and earnings is approximately 0.35[...]"
google.com/search?q=earnings+iq

 

[honestrosewater]

if only there were a study that compared earnings & iq...

If there is, I'm sure hitssquad will post it shortly.

 

[honestrosewater]

I swear I didn't see his post first! Wow, that is too funny.

 

[Pengwuino]

Ok my first post.

So with all the "geniuses" we have in the world, we still can't protect ourselves from asteroids, our technology is still childish when measured against reality, we still live on the same planet for millions of years, we still use natural resources as our primary fuel, we still go to war against our own kind based on lies, we elect IDIOTs to power, ect. . . ect. . . .

I wonder what all these "geniuses" are doing for the rest of the idiot-humans. My guess is they are using their brains to get rich, and they don't care about improving the race. Humans, to me, are not intelligent lifeforms.

Get a job...

Wait wait, no, better idea. Grow up, stop reading comic books. If your beef with mankind is that we are not able to stop million mile per hour projectiles being emitted from god knows where or that we haven't found a magical (also, since all matter is natural, there is no such thing as an "un-natural" resource) source of unlimited energy or that we have not settled planets thousands of lightyears away and made it our home, then i think that you calling another human being an idiot is rather hypocritical.

If you are so mad, go figure out a way to go to the nearest solar system, go figure out a magical end-all solution to the Earth's human population's energy need, and go figure out how to stop comets with a can of soda by yourself. If your so smart that you just know all their intelligence is somehow going into making themselves richer, it sounds like your smart enough to do all that.

 

[Critical_Pedagogy]

Get a job...

Wait wait, no, better idea. Grow up, stop reading comic books. If your beef with mankind is that we are not able to stop million mile per hour projectiles being emitted from god knows where or that we haven't found a magical (also, since all matter is natural, there is no such thing as an "un-natural" resource) source of unlimited energy or that we have not settled planets thousands of lightyears away and made it our home, then i think that you calling another human being an idiot is rather hypocritical.

If you are so mad, go figure out a way to go to the nearest solar system, go figure out a magical end-all solution to the Earth's human population's energy need, and go figure out how to stop comets with a can of soda by yourself. If your so smart that you just know all their intelligence is somehow going into making themselves richer, it sounds like your smart enough to do all that.

what I'm saying is that we shouldn't call these Mensa people "GENIUSES". Just because they can memorize more words, read faster, multiply faster, reason better, play chess better, and do all these nerdy things better than the rest of us, doesn't mean crap when they don't use their brains for the good of mankind.

Our technology is pathetic. Nice job GENIUSES.



=============


How many times does it take to get a spaceship into space? Ask the "GENIUSES"at NASA.

 

[Pengwuino]

what I'm saying is that we shouldn't call these Mensa people "GENIUSES". Just because they can memorize more words, read faster, multiply faster, reason better, play chess better, and do all these nerdy things better than the rest of us, doesn't mean crap when they don't use their brains for the good of mankind.

Our technology is pathetic. Nice job GENIUSES.



=============


How many times does it take to get a spaceship into space? Ask the "GENIUSES"at NASA.

Pathetic compared to what? The Outer Limits? Orson Welles? SCIENCE FICTION? Ivan said it best one day... its called Science Fiction for a reason.

I mean i can't even understand how you think. Do you really think its a simple task to solve all the problems that face mankind? I mean the complexity of hte world is astounding and these geniuses do not claim to know everything about anything. I mean if you could create a book with all the knowledge in the world about science, the average human being could probably only read and understand 1% of it in their lifetimes.

 

[Janus]

what I'm saying is that we shouldn't call these Mensa people "GENIUSES". Just because they can memorize more words, read faster, multiply faster, reason better, play chess better, and do all these nerdy things better than the rest of us, doesn't mean crap when they don't use their brains for the good of mankind.

What makes you think many of them don't?

Our technology is pathetic. Nice job GENIUSES.

Using what as a yardstick? Without someone else's technology to compare it to, how do we know?

=============


How many times does it take to get a spaceship into space? Ask the "GENIUSES"at NASA.

How many times have you tried?

 

[JamesU]

all very nice points

 

[honestrosewater]

all very nice points

You really want that most annoying award, don't you?

 

[JamesU]

mmmmmmmmaybe

 

[Critical_Pedagogy]

1-What makes you think many of them don't?
2-Using what as a yardstick?
3-Without someone else's technology to compare it to, how do we know?
4-How many times have you tried?

1 - Science enrollment at universities is way down. Kids aren't interested in that stuff. Statistically this should imply that a proportional amount of America's elite students aren't interested either. Unless you want to believe that all who sign up for science are geniuses, and the ones who aren't interested are the average students.
2 - Just look at how pathetic we are. We're sitting duck in space. No protection whatsoever from anything coming our way. We're no different from Chimps in the jungle.
3 - See above statement.
4 - None. More proof that humans (including me) aren't intelligent life forms. Earth should be called Planet of the Apes. That's really what's going on here. 2 billion people living off $1 or less. Wealthy nations polluting the planet for profit. It's a discusting filthy world we live in.

 

[Pengwuino]

1 - Science enrollment at universities is way down. Kids aren't interested in that stuff. Reasons: it's too hard, not interesting, blah blah blah. I believe the ones at fault are the schools and teachers. It's their job to make science fun and easy.

How bout we just "make" uranium safe to eat? Wrong. Science can't just be "made fun and easy". Its hard, its not all that comic books want to tell you it is, and there's nothing that can change that. Its not the teachers fault that enrollment its down, its societies fault. We can't just re-write formulas to make them fun and easy and pretty for children.

2 - Just look at how pathetic we are. We're sitting duck in space. No protection whatsoever from anything coming our way. We're no different from Chimps in the jungle.

You seem to be wholly obsessed with being hit by a meteor. Yes, we're no different from chimps except for basically we've created everything you interact with on a daily basis. Chimps do not create particle accelerators, chimps do not create space stations, and chimps do not study quantum physics. I cannot believe you would compare us to chimps in as far as knowledge is concerned.

3 - See above statement.

You didn't answer his quesitn. What is our yardstick? Who has better technology? Just because your personal opinion is that we're ape-like, doesn't exactly mean we're low on the technological scale. PLease provide examples of where we SHOULD be.

4 - None. More proof that humans (including me) aren't intelligent life forms. Earth should be called Planet of the Apes. That's really what's going on here. 2 billion people living off $1 or less. Wealthy nations polluting the planet for profit. It's a discusting filthy world we live in.

No, just more proof that you have no idea what your talking about. You are simply saying that you are unintelligent while the rest of world does indeed have highly intelligent people. Just because a bunch of people are poor for various reasons does not mean people are stupid. Chimps live off $0 a day, how about that, see how stupid you sound? Science and technology do not strive to spread wealth. Its goal, and the goal of most "geniuses" working in science, is to learn more about the universe... not learn economics.

 

[Critical_Pedagogy]

I cannot believe you would compare us to chimps in as far as knowledge is concerned.

===============

All the Knowledge we have can't save us from inevitable doom. So what does that say about our "Great Knowledge"?




You didn't answer his quesitn. What is our yardstick? Who has better technology? Just because your personal opinion is that we're ape-like, doesn't exactly mean we're low on the technological scale. PLease provide examples of where we SHOULD be.

================

If we were intelligent we would realize the we need all the efforts of the world's people to save ourselves. That means the rich countries should be helping poor countries with education so that we all can contribute to solving our huge problems. We should not oppress little countries and give token handouts to show we care. Humans should have 1 official language, and we should all get along. Nuclear weapons should be banned, and war as well. This great civilization that we are is a lie. We are savages and murderers just like the beasts on the savanah. The only difference is that we can talk to each other and write down our thoughts. Big whoopie.



The rest of world does indeed have highly intelligent people. Just because a bunch of people are poor for various reasons does not mean people are stupid. Chimps live off $0 a day, how about that, see how stupid you sound? Science and technology do not strive to spread wealth. Its goal, and the goal of most "geniuses" working in science, is to learn more about the universe... not learn economics.
=================
Geniuses would realize that those 2 billion people would serve the world better if they could go to school and have food on their plate. While the rich "intelligent" nations have too much food, the rest of the world cries out for handouts. It doesn't take a genius to realize that greed and unfair politics is what's killing those other countries. But of course, the geniuses in the rich lands don't care about dark skinned people dying. Somehow you want to separate the Geniuses in science from the Geniuses in other fields like politics, economics, ect. . . I'm talking about all geniuses in all fields, what have they done for the world? Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed. I have no respect for any of them.