Yes really. A poor standard of literacy attracts much negative comment around here, and the output of automatic translation software (while it has its uses) is a standing joke.
As I understand it, an illiterate could pass a Mensa test because there are tests that use only symbols etc and no words.
These are both true statements. A fun game is to rerun the progressive translations of something through different langauges and watch it mutate.
However has anyone ever banned over bad grammar? Someone with poor grammar can post here. Every one of my posts here are my cite.
Which is interesting. What kind of iconography do they use? Is it just progressive matrices?
Oh, bullshit. You can set the rules for any club you want. In my book club, we talk about books. Now in fact we might prefer to talk about the wine, or work, or families, and we do a bit of that, but every single time, the discussion is firmly brought back to books. And not just books generally. We talk about a specific book, the book chosen that month, even if we all thought it was shit. So believe it or not, despite our lack of barriers to admission, we manage not to skew back to some mean. We manage to have an open club where intellectual stuff etc remains favored, because that’s how we choose to structure the club and and to run it. I’m in a Bible study, and guess what we do there? Wait for a shocker: We study the Bible. Every time! And here’s a secret: The Bible study is not a big seller. Not a lot of people that interested in it. The doors are open wide, and for a lot of people, we probably couldn’t pay them to attend. Just because a group is theoretically open to all, doesn’t mean it becomes a purposeless “social club” that must veer off course without direction or intention.
So what? If they can grok what’s going on and keep up, why not let them in? If they can’t – if they are bored by the proceedings or confused by them – presumably they will not persevere anyway. Most social groups are self-selecting; the assertion that some sort of “gate-keeper” is needed, is merely a species of deluded arrogance. You worry about the club being overrun, when in fact there’s absolutely no indication anyone is pounding on the door to get in anyway.
Actually, I find smugly and unjustifiably arrogant people to be far more painful than either smartasses or dumbasses, so I guess our mileage varies. Which is, of course, merely another indication that you can by no means rely on the assumption that people would wet themselves with joy at the prospect of spending time with people who are so tiresome.
So what? Again, if you can run with the big dogs, why should you not be allowed to? “You’re not a big dog” strikes me as a meaningless answer, one that boils down to “NOKD” (“Not our kind, dear,” if you’re unfamiliar with the parlance of the American snob.)
Wrong. I am unimpressed by the intellect of most admitted Mensans, finding them no smarter, though of course no dimmer, than the average run of people. You have seriously misread me if you think I credit them with intellects that “tower.” I don’t have a single degree of concern about them “scaring off non-intellectuals”; my position is that I am fairly confident they (and you) vastly overestimate the number of non-intellectuals who will want to crash their parties. There’s no need to worry about “driving away” people who are highly unlikely to show up in the first place. It reminds me, actually, of the scene in Mary Poppins where the housemaid opens the door to pretentiously announce “The postion is filled!” to a street empty of any applicants. I continue to find the fear of being “taken over by obnoxious wankers” to be just another example of the delusional arrogance of at least some Mensa supporters, though I will admit that as an example of this, it is a nicely striking one.
But what you have singularly failed to convince me of, is why that would be a problem. If the Mensans talk about/participate in things that are intellectualy rigorous, then there will develop what you call a “natural skew” towards the intellectual. This doesn’t mean the club must be organized around any one (or two or more) particularl activities, it simply means that the discussion and/or activity is conducted on a more intelligent plane. Because that’s why theyr’e getting together, right? If they’re not even doing that – the club exists for what, exactly?
If the only thing that distinguishes Mensa from “any other social club” is its exclusionary entrance policy, than IMO it is truly a worthless endeavor. But I don’t actually believe that, because I don’t buy your argument in this regard.
I’m not a social club, but as it happens, there is no standardized benchmark for being my friend, such that the delerious pleasures of my friendship are only available to those who make the cut. I’m not under the impression there’s that many people clamoring to be in my personal club anyway. I don’t approve of arbitrarily exclusionary social clubs. They cultivate a sort of delusional pretentiousness that IMO you are currently displaying, which I happen to personally really dislike. (“We have to keep people out of our club or we’ll be overrun!”) Frankly, the best that I can say for your arguments is that they are cementing this position.
Yeah, that’s me – only for personal freedom so long as people refrain from arbitrarily excluding others from organizations. It’s a liability, but I struggle on. You, OTOH, seem to embrace an idea of “personal freedom” that presumably would include whites-only country clubs and males-only business clubs. As it happens, and contrary to your assertion, I’m okay with those, too, as long as the law is – on a day-to-day basis, they don’t make my world spin any faster or slower. The difference between us is that I don’t feel that I owe any such organization any degree of personal respect even if I acknowledge its right to exist.
They can exercise their personal freedom as they see fit, but they are not entitled to my respect or regard for how they choose to do so. And if consider that I take Mensa to be a personal “affront,” you have once again seriously over-estimated the importance of the organization, if not in society generally, certainly to me personally.
Are you serious? Look, I’ve posted to this thread a dozen times. I honestly think my position (“attack” only if you choose to construe it as such) is very clear, and I must decline to retype it, if only to save time and my fingers.
Hadn’t bothered to read the cartoon before. Went back and looked. And in your analogy, if the running club thought that being in the running club made them better than anyone who wasn’t, and that there was no point in associating with people not in the running club, then yes, a strip making fun of them for running in circles would be amusing. Hell, a strip making fun of them for running in circles, if properly constructed, could be funny regardless.
For someone gets so incensed over the misrepresentation of statements, you sure are doing a lot of it. I have **never **qualified Lynn’s statements in this absolute way–what I *have *done is commented on the impression she’s given and asked her whether that is, in fact, the case… and she hasn’t really replied to the contrary. Let’s give a breakdown, shall we?
**#9: **Lynn comments on hostility toward Mensa and the only theory she posits is sour grapes.
**#52: **I observe that the attitude displayed by Lynn is exactly why I never bothered to join.
**#54: **Lynn responds to reaffirm her belief that “a lot of hostility towards Mensa IS sour grapes.”
**#67: **I respond, conceding that yes, some percentage of hostility can be qualified as sour grapes, but that it’s very arrogant to assume that all or most of it is, and that that very assumption is a demonstration of a non-sour-grapes reason for disliking Mensa.
**#86: **Lynn talks about why she likes Mensa, which seems to sum up as, “We can have intelligent conversations, unlike non-Mensans.”
**#98: **Lynn again seems to set up a dichotomy of “Mensans stimulating, non-Mensans tedious and banal.”
**#99: **Lynn says that Mensa isn’t the only way to find interesting people to talk to, but it’s the best way she has found, for her.
**#103: **I reply to Lynn’s #98 to say (not sarcastically) that it is unfortunate if she doesn’t know any intelligent people outside of Mensa or if she uses Mensa membership as her criterion for intelligence. (Note the qualifier: if, if, if–I am not saying that either of these things is the case, simply that it would be unfortunate if it were so. Again, what was that comment about reading comprehension?)
**#107: **Lynn replies that she didn’t say either of those things.
**#108: **I responded with a direct quote where she said that she and most Mensans “can get along with non-Mensans,” but that they attend the meetings because Mensans are more stimulating.
**#113: **I post some quick U.S. statistics that demonstrate there’s a very large number of people out there who would qualify for Mensa but never applied–an awful lot of fresh grapes.
**#122: **You come in and say that my reading comprehension sucks for interpreting someone saying that she tolerates non-Mensans but really only gets intellectual stimulation from Mensans to mean that she doesn’t know any intellectual people outside of Mensa. 
**#127: **Lynn again seems to set up some kind of “you’re in Mensa, or you only talk about sports or celebrity gossip” dichotomy.
**#147: **I observe that you never made any actual arguments as to how my interpretation was wrong. I also point out that people have given ample examples of why we dislike Mensa. I respond to Lynn again, asking if she gets my point about how she keeps setting up these fairly insulting Mensan/non-Mensan comparisons, and whether she understands how that could turn potential applicants off.
**#154: **You misqualify my posts and then fail to even offer any examples of Lynn saying she knows anyone intelligent outside of Mensa.
Oh, the irony is delicious.
Which means what? That you write for soap operas?