Inquiring Minds
If Mensa members are so smart, why did they join an organization whose name means “crazy” stupid in Spanish?
UPDATE: Then again, if I’m so smart myself, couldn’t I have waited to consult a dictionary before publishing this snarky remarky? Especially when the correct definition would have worked better than the one I misremembered? I may not be a member of Mensa, but I guess I am now a member of mensos. Close enough?
November 18th, 2004 at 11:51 am
I was driving down the road the other day behind a late model honda that looked beat to Hell. He was also doing 35 MPH in the passing lane beside another car while the speed limit was 55 MPH.
He had a Mensa sticker on his car. I don’t place too much faith in their members to actually be, you know, smart.
November 18th, 2004 at 4:12 pm
My 50-year-old Spanish says “stupid”. That epithet is not strictly limited to translation of Mensa, either: perhaps the originating post?
November 18th, 2004 at 9:37 pm
Hello, everyone, I am a moron who spams irrelevant crap about Tom Delay on blog discussions that have nothing to do with him. Everyone point at me and laugh.
November 18th, 2004 at 9:44 pm
As a long-time Mensa member, the way I heard it is that Mensa was founded just after WWII by a group of Cambridge University fellows. They met for a monthly dinner, and took the name from “mens” [mind], mense [month], and table [mesa]. or something like that. When our Anchorage Alaska Mensa group held a dinner at a Mexican restaurant, all the waitresses called out the kitchen crew to see us. We all had a good laugh, of course. It was Mexico in Alaska, the world’s northernmost temple of Oaxaca cuisine. Ah that mole…..
November 20th, 2004 at 10:05 am
Conley, you got me there. Now that I think about it, I’ve never heard the word used in any context where “stupid” would make sense but “crazy,” wouldn’t, or vice-versa. My assistant, a Spanish immigrant, says the word means “disturbed,” but the dictionary says “stupid” and so does Google’s translation tool. Stupid is as stupid blogs.
November 20th, 2004 at 2:17 pm
According to Lisa Simpson, it’s also a constellation visible only from the southern hemisphere.
November 20th, 2004 at 2:48 pm
XRLQ: sorry to make a point that enhances your assault. The larger problem remains your somewhat pointless attack upon harmless masses purely because they represent the “right” end of the bell curve of IQ. Perhaps I read somewhere that the next major cultural war in the western world would be between the halves of the bell curve, but I didn’t pay enough attention to determine which would be the aggressor. Are you now telling me that the war has begun?
November 20th, 2004 at 5:18 pm
Sure, Conley. And when Patterico and I make fun of you, it’s just because you’re so smart. Ha.
Did it even occur to you that there might be some people out there who are smart enough to join Mensa, but have no desire to?
November 20th, 2004 at 6:48 pm
Hey, Xrlq, that’s a pretty keen insight. Did you get that from someone who is a member of Mensa?
November 20th, 2004 at 7:31 pm
That DID occur to me, but since the odds are 50-1 against each of you, I wonder which of you (XRLQ or Patterico) failed the test? (Umm, actually not necessarily “failed” the test, as much as scored insufficiently to qualify to join?)
Separately, there is a tendency of non-members to “segregate” the known members, and sit around making fun of them, but I got used to that even BEFORE entering your blog. Often I am more amused by the “making fun” than the active participants therein, believing as I do that “the only bad publicity/attention is no publicity/attention at all”, to paraphrase a sentiment you forced me to post in another inane scoff.
No, I believe the true root cause of your harrassment lies in your teamed inability to rebut, refute, effectively dispute, that which I post; or to argue well enough, your own opinions. Perhaps you should recruit some aides or accept my offer of assistance in becoming once more whole?
November 20th, 2004 at 7:45 pm
That DID occur to me, but since the odds are 50-1 against each of you, I wonder which of you (XRLQ or Patterico) failed the test? (Umm, actually not necessarily “failed” the test, as much as scored insufficiently (out of the top 2%) to qualify to join?)
Separately, there is a tendency of non-members to “segregate” the known members, and sit around making fun of them, but I got used to that even BEFORE entering your blog. Often I am more amused by the “making fun” than are the active participants therein, believing as I do that “the only bad publicity/attention is no publicity/attention at all”, to paraphrase a sentiment you forced me to post in another inane scoff.
No, I believe the true root cause of your harrassment lies in your teamed inability to rebut, refute, effectively dispute, that which I post; or to argue well enough, your own opinions. Perhaps you should recruit some aides or accept my offer of assistance in becoming once more whole?
November 20th, 2004 at 7:46 pm
I think they teach statistics and logic in the same Mensa class where they teach humility and clear expression.
November 20th, 2004 at 7:47 pm
OOOOps – I got caught again by being disconnected from my dial-up, apparently posting the incomplete edit, while retaining it as a comment to be edited/posted. Too late by the time I noticed – BOTH were entered.
November 20th, 2004 at 7:57 pm
Ah-ha! The statistics gambit. Precisely put, the requirements define the upper 2% of IQs (probably >137). That appears to me to be a reasonable approximation of 1-in-50, for EACH of you. Accepting at face value the claims you have registered that “could pass that test about age 12″, and “smart enough to join Mensa, but have no desire to?”, the probablility of BOTH having the requisites rise to (1/50 * 1/50) = 4 in 10,000.
Humility is not an issue, in that my one-time rash revelation has deprived me of any opportunity to conceal MENSA; and my tendency to argue with those claims that I dispute, has deprived me of silence.
Clarity? Oh, I forgot – SHORT words, SHORT sentences, NEVER any clauses. OK?
November 20th, 2004 at 8:59 pm
Like Patterico said, if this is your idea of logic, you’re in trouble. How does Mensa decide which people it thinks are in the top 2%? Have each applicant flip a 50-sided coin?
Even if my intellect (or Patterico’s, or whatever) were random, your 10,000 figure would still be way off. There are approximately 6 billion people in the world, so approximately 120,000,000 people out there are qualified to join la organización mensa if they wanted to. Yet, of those 120 million who qualify to join, only 100,000 actually do. Thus, even if you were to assume that I qualify to join the organization (and I have no reason to think that I don’t), the odds are still 1199 to 1 that I won’t.
November 20th, 2004 at 9:32 pm
XRLQ: I am disappointed! The earlier posts are replete with “tests”: specifically, standardisd IQ tests. The qualifications for MENSA are the top 2% of the range of human IQs, usually those 137 and above. For all those who COULD, but choose not to join, their number cannot be legion, since they are by definition, less than 2% of the population (or 1 in 50, if you prefer). Logic? Strait and complete!
Since you and Patterico are separate cases, for BOTH of you to qualify is the PRODUCT of the probability that either could – or, as shown, .02 * .02 = .0004 = 1 in 10,000. Math/statistics – Check!
Humility remains challenged? I say again that although I have never denied my rash, one-time, statement, I have not, either, repeated it.
It has been your repeated attempts to extort my silence by using my earlier admission on another blog, to cudgel me, that has kept my amusement sufficient to entertain these silly posts of yours. Those, and the tendency demonstrated by each of you to advance ludicrous arguments in support of laughable hypotheses, have denied me any hope of “letting it all die down”, since I am innately constrained to rise in defense of my beliefs. Humility – perhaps a TAD shaky, but at least reparable?
Clarity: take this text to your local HS English teacher, and I will happily read the critique as to clarity. If my message needs amplification: “I never ran from bullies. The two of you appear to wish to test that position. I am STILL not running. Your superior numbers do not improve your command of facts, nor your understanding of facts, nor your ability to use facts. You are wrong to demean a class of people, based upon enmity toward one of that class. Worse, you picked the wrong one of the class with whom to begin this unworthy process.” If, again, you find the foregoing unclear, ask your remedial reading teacher to work with you on it.
Since you continue to resist my ongoing offer to assist your healing, to make you once more whole, I guess I will simply await your next amusing attempt at provocation.
November 20th, 2004 at 9:35 pm
What are the chances that someone who is really in the top 2% of IQs could suck at logic as much as Mensa Boy Conley does? I’d perform the calculations, but me not so smart. Anyone from Mensa care to take a crack at it?
November 20th, 2004 at 9:40 pm
If you feel outnumbered, Mensa Boy, feel free to bring whatever reinforcements you deem necessary. I’m sure there are plenty of Mensa volunteers waiting in the wings.
If you don’t feel outnumbered, then perhaps you could stop whining about how you’re outnumbered.
Personally, I think you’re doing fine on your own — that is, if your goal is to show that someone with a high IQ can be completely lacking in common sense and the ability to apply simple principles of logic.
November 20th, 2004 at 9:45 pm
By the way, could you calculate for us the chances that all Mensa members are truly Mensa members? Based on what I have read in this thread, it sounds like it would be .02 to the 100,000th power — applying your “logic.” I don’t have a calculator handy, but I’ll bet that probability is so low that it approaches zero — meaning that I have just proved Mensa doesn’t really exist.
Wow. I feel a lot better now.
November 20th, 2004 at 10:59 pm
OOOOO – XRLQ: did someone amend a post whilst I wasn’t “listening”?
There has appeared in the 8:59 PM post, a whole new paragraph (albeit equally wrong mathematically and logically). The “.0004 ” calculation shown in mine, is the probability that both of two randomly chosen subjects would QUALIFY for membership. If you know anyone who can help you check the calculation, I will wait – but it is relatively trivial math, so I remain confident.
The wholly separate question of whether you would CHOOSE to do so, would need first to ascertain your ability (which I do not denigrate), then determine whether you sought enlightenment in the company of intellectual peers, or sought peace with your neighbors. Choose either way, if you were qualified. No choice is available if you were not. But your argument is flawed by your assumptions regarding the prevalence of testing to have identified those qualified, the proximity of chapters which those who did qualify might join, even the cultural acceptance of intelligence (often derided as “book learning” although totally unrelated thereto) as useful.
Now, look around you: do you really feel “smarter” than the next 49 random people whom you see? If so, there may be merit to your contention that you would have that choice. There is no doubt that you are more learned, so perhaps we should restrict the sampling to your workplace peers? Still feel “smarter” than that “next 49″? Next, have you, as an adult, taken any standardised IQ tests? Were you provided the results? Were those in the area of 137, or higher (it does depend on the test, what the numbers mean, but that is a guideline to the qualification)? Moving on up to viable candidate.
Now, let us post you in, say the Sudan? Any positive answers to any of the above questions? How about China? Where IS the local chapter of MENSA?
In conclusion, ignorance and stupidity remain a plague upon all our houses. At least, though, ignorance IS curable.
November 20th, 2004 at 11:09 pm
I feel despair, if at all, not due to being outnumbered, but rather by the sense that the two of you seem so impervious to logic or to mathematics. You revile my logic, while pointing to NO errors. You assault my calculation, while offering in “rebuttal” only a lame link to the MENSA site which confirms my calculation. You lament that *I* suck at logic and common sense, while offering yourselves as examples of those who reason (although quite wrongly* and inaccurately*). However, I remain determined to extend my hand to assist you – either, or both – in overcoming your (GLARING) shortcomings.
*wrongly – applies inappropriate or inapplicable algorithms
*inaccurately – applies even THOSE so sloppily as to render incorrect results for the chosen algorithm
November 20th, 2004 at 11:35 pm
Patterico: your flaws of logic astound even me – and I had thought I had seen EVERY variation. Since the membership of MENSA, the odds you calculate would apply instead to the determination that ALL of them would ALSO be qualified for the top 2% OF the top 2%: IQ OVER roughly 170. Review your premises as well as your calculation – both suck, but you MIGHT improve, with practice and guidance.
November 21st, 2004 at 8:21 am
Sigh. I’ll try to keep this simple, to explain your logic breakdown clearly.
Earlier, you said:
Uh, no. This might be the case if Xrlq and I were randomly chosen subjects. But we are not.
The chance of any three randomly chosen subjects having an IQ under 100 is .5 x .5 x .5. The chance of all three of us (you, me, and Xrlq) having IQs under 100 is quite low, approaching zero. (If there were a common-sense component of the IQ measurement, I’d put the chances somewhat higher due to your inclusion in the mix. Since there is not, I am confident that the chance is so minimal as to be negligible.)
Understand now? It’s not a math problem. It’s a logic problem. Your calculations for us should be different from your calculations for people whose IQs are just as likely to be below 100 as above. (Here is the best place for you to insert a cheap crack about our intellects.)
My example of calculating whether everyone in Mensa is likely to be a Mensa took your error to an extreme, to make a point. That calculation would be a rough approximation of whether 100,000 randomly chosen people would qualify. That would not be an appropriate calculation for the *members*. Nor would a calculation for two random people be appropriate for two people who already told you they would probably qualify (and based on your specific IQ qualifications, I would).
Now that I gave that example, you now appear to get it, having said that the 1 in 10,000 number is “the probability that both of two randomly chosen subjects would QUALIFY for membership.” But that’s different from what you said before, Conley. You didn’t say “randomly chosen subjects” — you said us. That’s where you messed up, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
Maybe you just misspoke when you said you were calculating the odds for *us* rather than random members of the public — but if so, what was your point? You seemed to be using the low probability to question the veracity of our claims.
November 21st, 2004 at 4:47 pm
Patterico:
I generously gave you a break in the calculation, in that I did not confound you by the use of the “declining population of subjects” and the “declining population of acceptable choices” after the first selection has been qualified: I did not consider the minute difference in the result to be worth the trouble and the argument.
Please note however, that the “declining remaining populations” aspect of the calculations plus your express identification of current membership as the subject group, is why I did not perceive your “Mensa doesn’t exist” recipe as suited to any situ other than the chance that every current member of Mensa is qualified for the top 2% of those qualified for Mensa. I MAY have been wrong – there is a chance that it also produces a suitable approximation of the likelihood of 100,000 randomly selected subjects all meeting the prerequisites for Mensa (save application and provision of proof, the qualifications) – so your ruse may have succeeded in further confusing this issue.
However, having not established proof of your IQ, I SHOULD treat you no differently than as if your WERE in fact randomly chosen. If you have indeed NOT taken the qualifying tests, and have no other evidence that you DO qualify, I SHOULD continue to treat you as randomly chosen. After all, Pew shows that the overwhelming majority of the top 20% of earners believe themselves to be in the top 2%. The majority of the top 60% feel sure that they are in the top 40%. Self-perception is not a precise qualification?
The odds that BOTH of you qualify would remain approximately .0004, as random choices.
However, I will agree that the methadology of “choosing” you is probably flawed, in that I have personally experienced your “wit and wisdom, etc.”, as you put it: I will even concede that you each demonstrate characteristics of participation in the “upper half” – the “right” half of the bell curve. So, let’s redo the numbers with that basic assumption (which I am rigorously not entitled to make):
Now the target is the top 4% of “your” membership class;
each of you has one chance in 25, of meeting the standard;
BOTH of you, given that generous initial treatment, would still be .04 x .04 = .0016 = (round it generously) 2 chances in 1000. (Again, neither population declining due to the initial choice.)
Does this address the issue adequately?
(BTW, I thank you for the first outright assertion that you DO possess the requisite IQ – I had failed to provoke that forthrightness previously.)
Were we to take this recent assertion as a given, only XRLQ remains an unknown, reverting the calculation to the .04 of “your membership class”, above. That is for BOTH. Straightforward? Any assertions forthcoming from XRLQ?
Or is there still fear and loathing of identification as a member of that despised “elite”?
November 21st, 2004 at 5:23 pm
Patterico: is your domain down? No links seem to take me there.
November 21st, 2004 at 6:54 pm
Conley: If 137 is the cut-off, then I probably qualify. And Patterico’s domain (patterico.com) works fine.
November 21st, 2004 at 7:44 pm
XRLQ: Thanks! (No crack about your admission.) ‘Twas unavailable for about 15 minutes (that I sought to reach it) so, of COURSE I panicked! (How LIKE a lefty/etc., eh?)
November 22nd, 2004 at 6:18 am
Conley, you twit, I owe you a cup of coffee and my sincere thanks for giving me written evidence to show my mom and dad when they ask me why I QUIT Mensa.
November 22nd, 2004 at 8:25 am
speedwell: are you attempting to assume Patterico’s role in the game? WHY, even given his absence, would you want that burden?