I tried to substitute “obnoxiousness” with “awkardness” to avoid further accusations of hostility, but I missed the edit window. The former more honestly expresses my reaction to those types of statements anyhow, so I guess I’ll have to stand by my original word choice.
Yes, there is a test, several in fact. As was said earlier, a person has to has internet access, has to be able to fill out our registrations forms, has to be able to pass the capcha, and has to follow instructions at least to the degree required to validate membership by email. Actually, there’s another test, too. The person has to be able to read English well enough to fill out the forms and follow the email instructions. Once that’s all done, then a person can still be kicked out for various reasons, including being too stupid (naturally or as a trolling technique). In fact, we (the moderation staff) have been discussing someone who is apparently acting stupid in order to troll.
No. We don’t welcome everyone. We don’t welcome kids under the age of 13, and we’re not overjoyed with kids under the age of 18, though we’ll let the 13 and over crowd in with a warning. We have several domains and IP ranges that are blocked from the boards. And, of course, we promptly ban spammers when we find them.
So, the SDMB does exclude people based on several criteria, and we (the moderation staff) also exclude people based on their behavior.
Okay, this made me laugh. 
There is a test to getting to work everyday. You must be able to clothe yourself (Pants first, THEN the shoes). You must be able to obtain sustenance. (Do not stick your knife in the toaster). You must be able to actually find your way to work, using whatever transport is available to you. You must be able to actually accomplish the tasks set for you when you get there. You must not moon the boss, you must not pee in the plants, you must not lick the glass plate of the copier. Tests galore!
As should have been obvious – indeed, as I think is obvious – I am talking about an actual test, or an acceptable score thereon. I find that an artificial and arbitrary means of excluding people, and I don’t approve of artificially exclusionary organizations. This philosophical disapproval is hardly limited to Mensa, as I have also already said.
As far as the SDMB is concerned, if someone says they are over 13, they’re in. There’s no attempt made to check that. And meeting minimal behavioral standards in any organization or at any event is no more a “test” than is getting yourself to work in the morning.
Well, sure, we all had to do all of that in order to register. But the same thing has to be done at zillions of message boards all around the Internet. Does that mean that you find the same level of intelligence in evidence at all of those message boards? As Jodi points out, these are similar to “tests” that people have to pass in order to function normally in society, which the vast majority of people can pass. We have no additional test here that is any real measure of intelligence.
And if a person is acting stupid in order to troll, isn’t it the trolling they are being kicked out for, not the stupidity?
Obviously. I don’t know who Lynn is talking about, but I can easily think of two posters who IMO are deeply and profoundly stupid, and AFAIK as long as they are willing and able to take a certain amount of Pitting over their shortcomings, they are as welcome here as anyone else. And really they don’t even have to take the Pittings, they can ignore them. Here, if someone bores you or doesn’t understand you, you just don’t talk to them. Just like IRL.
Oh, what a RW paradise you must live in. In my RW, the stupid and boring people are IN MY FACE. Would that I could close them and surf for another body to interact with.
Don’t knock processed American cheese slices until you’ve been forcibly deprived of them for a time. After I’d been living in Japan for a few months, I was craving them (or rather, grilled cheese sammiches made with 'em) so bad that I made Mom bring a package with when she came to visit for a week.
Poor analogy. The running club is more like the SDMB: people who can’t handle the distance self-select out.
Awaiting an actual analysis of how my interpretation was wrong–'fraid you can’t just play “'cause I said so.” Your use of the subjunctive does fill me with glee, though.
Yes, that would be the hubris displayed by a visible population of its members. Apparently *your *reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. FWIW, to clearly articulate my position, I have no problem with Mensa qua Mensa. I have a problem with people who think that (a) belonging to it means anything other than that they perform well on standardized intelligence tests (there’s an oxymoron, 'ey?) and (b) people outside of Mensa aren’t worth bothering with.
Do you see what I’m getting at here, Lynn? Regardless of your intentions, you appear, though your posts, to be dividing the world into the dichotomy of “Mensans, who are intelligent and have interesting conversations” and “all people who aren’t Mensans, who have no interests outside of pro wrestling, Jerry Springer, and American Idol.” Do you understand how that kind of attitude could make other smart people not want to join Mensa?
Just wanted to say “well put” to a bunch of this post, even though it doesn’t 100% reflect my own position.
I’m not sure I agree with your premise, as the most intelligent people I’ve ever met weren’t socially awkward but could get along with nearly anyone. I wonder if it’s the same way with kids- I’ve known weird smart kids and normal smart kids, so what’s really the difference? Not all intelligent children have trouble relating to their peers, so there must be something else to it, which, in my experience (limited though it is) was a certain attitude. Smart kids that had other stuff going for them seemed to get along just fine with everyone else. It was the kids who didn’t think they had anything else, and therefore had to inflate and exaggerate the value of their intelligence, that were socially awkward.
I have this problem with my friends now, as they vary somewhat in educational interest and attainment. So, if one of my “self-proclaimed genius” friends has trouble communicating with someone he doesn’t think is as intelligent as he is, but everyone else can communicate with that person just fine, who’s really the one with the problem?
Anyone who self-selects their peer group based on their real or perceived inability to meaningfully communicate with 98% of the population is not going to be someone I have much use for in an employment situation. Additionally, someone who is so unaware of the perceptions surrounding that self selection that they would put such a thing on their resume should not be surprised if it ends up in the circular file. Why would I want to hire someone who practically boasts about their social ineptitude?
I don’t think it’s a question of “sour grapes.” I don’t need to join a club to make clear my IQ. (They would allow me into Mensa anyway; according to my school IQ tests.)
I’m just trying to say that 1)
There are many different kinds of intelligence.
-
“Intelligence” is a very subjective thing.
-
You don’t need a club to find intelligent people–even if you live in Bugtussel Tennessee.
-
If you can’t find intelligent people on your own–without some kind of club–you may be intelligent, but you seriously lack social skills, and that’s what you should be working on.
Don’t get me wrong; if you want to pride yourself in your intelligence, great. Some people pride themselves in their knowledge of small-gauge model railroads. Go ahead and be pleased but don’t be smug about it, because there are so many more intelligent people who can’t be bothered with Mensa.
Hey! They made ME come up with the secret password, not to mention matching the half of the medallion. Are you saying not everybody had to do that?
So only English speakers can be “intelligent”?
Duh!
Great post, and I agree. I was in talented and gifted classes from elementary school to middle school. I voluntarily opted out, largely because I had friends in the traditional track classroom that had to do work, occasionally be bored, and so forth, while we were allowed to self-direct our learning. You could build a nuclear reactor, play with Legos, read Camus, play D&D, or sit with your thumb up your ass all day. Because you were “smart” you had different rules. I thought it was wrong that “traditional track” kids couldn’t do the same shit we did.
The other thing that bugged me is that I went to a Department of Defense Dependent School - where order and civility is pretty much a given. But in talented and gifted class, you could act like an ass without consequence. If you yelled out in class there or interrupted the teacher, no big whup. Do that in a regular classroom and you were angling for detention.
One of the best things I learned in those classes was from my “regular” teacher, who told me that it was important that I didn’t make a huge production out of leaving my classmates for TAG classes, and that I still had to follow the rules of the classroom. I have no idea why there’s this tolerance for rudeness, or simply a lack of concern in teaching kids social skills just because they’re smart. It’s like there’s an assumption that every kid who is above average intelligence has Asperger’s. Even kids with this syndrome can learn social skills.
No, it’s a good analogy. The point of the cartoon is to knock Mensans for supposedly being smart but not putting their talent to good use. Whether they self selected as smart or not is irrelevant to the cartoon.
You said Lynn said she knows no intelligent people outside of Mensa. You said she viewed having applied for Mensa as the sole criterion for who is highly intelligent and who isn’t. She simply didn’t say either of those things. What more can I say? Do you want me to repost everything Lynn has said in this thread for you, just so you can re-read and satisfy yourself that she doesn’t say what you said she did?
Your attempt to quote something Lynn said in support of your contention simply did not comprise a statement by Lynn to the effect you quoted. Indeed, particularly as to your second allegation, your attempt was laughable such was the gulf between what you said Lynn said, and the quote you came up with. The whole “sole criterion” thing is just shit you made up.
No you. I know there is no test to join the SDMB but it still has something that is it’s point of difference from other message boards. What setup would you use to skew towards the type of people who are members of Mensa? If you don’t have a test, it’s just going to end up have the same profile as the rest of the population. If you simply state that it is an organisation for people who are good at IQ tests, it’s going to attract jackasses who think they are good at IQ tests but aren’t, and they are going to swamp the place (and probably drive off honest people).
So your challenge is to come up with a way to skew the membership as the current members want it to be, without being exclusionary. And if your response is “I can’t”, then that’s just not good enough as far as I’m concerned. Your trivial concern about exclusion from a silly social club shouldn’t trump your concern for people being able to do what they want, in my view.
No you. :rolleyes:
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe a board that talked about intellectual stuff at a level that the world’s dumbasses wouldn’t understand? Stuff like that should be self-selecting. If you can run with the big dogs, why should you have to stay on the porch? If you can’t, you’ll be left behind anyway. The ridiculous conceit, IMO, is the idea that the stupid barbarians (“jackasses who only think they’re good at IQ tests but aren’t”) will overrun the elite Mensans, thereby ruining all their highbrow fun. In fact, common sense should tell you that if you are running an organization that functions at a level that most tragically unsmart people will neither understand nor appreciate, they are not going to want to be in your club anyway. This is why other groups that also skew to smart people but that do NOT exclude, are nevertheless not inundated. Chess club is safe. But again, the argument in favor of it is elitism – and naked elitism at that, the most unattractive kind.
And your trivial elevation of a silly social club’s desire to do exactly what they want should not trump your concern that they are being arbitrarily exclusionary, in my view. And your opinion to the contrary is just not good enough as far as I’m concerned.
Wow after reading this thread all I have to say is ignorance fought. Stimulating conversation would be nice, but Mensa ain’t the place to get it.
I’m smart enough to know comparing basic legally mandated age requirements to IQ tests for admittance isn’t stimulating conversation.
Lynn Bodoni I mean no disrespect but maybe you should try looking at your argument with some perspective. It’s doing no services to Mensa trust me.
Only people who can write (and presumably read) in English can be members of the SDMB. I was referring to tests of the SDMB.
Mensa is an international organization, and does not require knowledge of the English language.
Also with text to speech and speech to text software one needn’t even be literate.
Could an illiterate pass a Mensa test?
You continue not to get it. If you have a simple social club with open membership, it will not remain one in which intellectual stuff etc is favoured. Why would it? It will revert to the mean, like everything without a clear skewing factor does. And, as I’ve said, a club that says it’s for people who are good at IQ tests, but doesn’t actually test people is going to draw like a moth to a flame those whose opinion of their own ability is incorrect.
And if there’s one thing worse than a smartarse, it’s a dumbass who thinks he’s smart. Some of the most painful people who post on these boards have that feature.
Because you’re not a big dog. You seem to think that Mensans are towering intellects who will scare away non-intellectuals. This just isn’t right in my experience. Many of them are quiet, socially unassertive people who just want to socialise in a club that skews towards others like them. They are not going to drive anyone away from anything. They are just going to have no reason to attend when the place either becomes just another social club, or gets taken over by obnoxious wankers attracted to the idea of a club for people who are good at IQ tests into which they can insert themselves without having to be good at IQ tests.
I’m glad you brought this up, because it’s highly illustrative of the problem. The thing with a Chess club or a football club or whatever is that its activities revolve around a specific activity and this causes a natural skew. Mensa simply does not. Mensa meets simply don’t revolve around anything in particular. They revolve, from what I’ve seen, around whatever the heck the local membership happens to be interested in. So if the local membership was not of itself skewed (due to the test) in a particular way, the activities would not be skewed, which would mean that before too long it was indistinguishable from any other social club.
Why? I bet you decide who you socialise with. I bet you don’t see yourself as having any obligation whatsoever to include in your circle of friends all who cannot be excluded on some objective and politically justifiable basis.
I can justify my position: Mensa is not an influential organisation. Heck, as half the people here have said, it’s positively a social liability. It doesn’t control any resources or grant political access or anything else of that kind. It doesn’t matter a damn if most people can’t get into it. It’s simply a private club of people who have a certain unimportant ability. You on the other hand seem to think that their exercise of their personal freedom is an affront, even though it affects you not a wit. Your belief in ideas of personal freedom (if you have any, and I assume you do) would seem to be as deep as surface tension.
What’s your justification for your attack on my position?