clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) (03/13/88)
In article <7550@apple.Apple.Com>, Grady Ward writes: > Membership in the Cincinnatus Society is limited to persons > > scoring above the level of one-tenth of one percent on standard > > tests of general aptitude. For example, a combined score of > > 1500 (Verbal + Quantitative) on the Graduate Records > > Examination, or 1525 on the S.A.T. is deemed adequate evidence. > > For aptitude tests with about a 15 point standard deviation, > > this level of performance is around the 150 I.Q. > > level. I've been waiting to see responses to this, and I'm shocked that there haven't been any. The GRE and SAT exams are NOT intelligence tests. ETS, who likes to make all kinds of outrageous claims, even admits to this. The GRE and SAT exams are extremely couchable, and I feel that any reasonably competent person who wants to could achieve the scores you require for admission (BTW, this is the reason behind the existence of the Princeton Review). Kinda defeats the purpose of your society, doesn't it? Hell, I'd love to think my GRE and SAT scores make me better than 99.9+ % of the population, but it just doesn't work that way. Not elitist? Give me a break! If you don't want to be elitist, don't have any entrance requirements. The Cincinnatus Society appears to me to be nothing more than a group of people banding together to feed their egos and proclaim themselves intelligence superior on the basis of a test that wasn't designed to measure intelligence in the first place! Also, I don't feel, as well as many others, that "intelligence" tests measure anything beyond the ability to do well on tests like that. You may have good intentions, but please think about what I've said. This is a particular area of psychology in which I'm interested, and I have very strong opinions concerning it. I try to look at all sides of the issues, which in one reason why I'm sending for a copy of your journal. -- Chris Long Rutgers University RPO 1878 CN 5063 New Brunswick, NJ 08903 (201)-932-1160 clong@topaz.rutgers.edu
gjh@otter.hple.hp.com (Graham Higgins) (03/15/88)
> The Cincinnatus Society is a high I.Q. club whose purpose is to > share speculative ideas among its members through a quarterly Journal > and monthly newsletter. A members' directory is also published semi- > annually and members have access to a computer bulletin board. For most > effective and economical presentation, all contributions are laser- > typeset and printed using the latest desktop publishing technologies. So far, so good. Nothing wrong with sharing speculative ideas and the technology is a relevant medium for their exchange ... BUT things get worse ... > It is not surprising therefore that extremely gifted people, with their > lighting grasp, subtle discrimination and intellectual craving, seem odd > to the person of ordinary perception, who may be color-blind to > extraordinary spectral visions. You forgot to mention modesty. I find this sort of arrogance rather offensive and distasteful. However, that's merely a personal view, there is something else worth noting. Observe the use of the extra-logical connective "therefore" in the above sentence. We see another use of this term in a later passage ... > Indeed, in one study, forty percent of urban junior high school children > with I.Q.'s above 140 failed to be promoted to the next grade. Many of our > members, therefore, are struggling with social or geographical isolation. Now our group has developed some spoof in-house jargon to describe such extra-logical connectives - we globally replace words like "therefore" and "thus" by "armadillo" and "antelope" because they give more descriptive flavour to these extra-logical connectives. An example will serve to illustrate ... "We have an extremely difficult computational problem, armadillo we need to develop an AI system in order to solve it." Why "armadillo" and "antelope"? Well, "armadillo" suggests the notion of scurrying from fact to unwarranted inference, keeping your head well down, hoping no-one will notice. "Antelope" suggests the notion of leaping blithely from fact to conclusion to other conclusions without there being anything substantial in between (like a logical argument). I am fairly certain that, this being "sci.psych", there will be a number of psychologists out there, reading Mr. Ward's note and smiling to themselves. Despite being a founder member of what purports to be a "gifted persons'" society, Mr. Ward has displayed obvious prejudice and sloppy reasoning of a classical type. Studies have shown that emotional topics can have deleterious effects on subjects' judgement of the "truth" of three-term logic problems, especially where the "truth" of the logic is at variance with what the subject believes is the "truth" in the real world. The unsupported conclusions which Mr.Ward draws (indicated by the "therefore"s) appear to be classical examples of non-rational belief affecting rational logic. (It may be that Mr.Ward does have strongly-supported cases for these conclusions, but if that is so, I feel he is insulting the intelligence of the readership of this notesgroup by not at least alluding to them. Why *should* we seriously consider his claims, especially when his reasoning is apparently baseless?) > we are trying to overcome some of worst biases of the standardized tests by > considering entrance by essay or other original work. > (Perhaps you could contribute to this investigation!) Close, but no cigar. Chris Long's suggestion seems sensible ... "If you don't want to be elitist, don't have any entrance requirements." Why should a society for "gifted people" have entrance requirements? To "weed out" the "non-gifted"? Mr.Ward admits that defining "giftedness" is difficult and also bemoans the possible tragedy of losing a potential Einstein, Curie or Voltaire to the sea of the "mundane". I would have thought that having entrance requirements exposes the society to exactly this tragedy - and moreover they are in fact exacerbating the situation. I think I will take a slightly stronger line. The notion of a high-I.Q. society (with or without entrance requirements) should be repellent to most "sci.psych" readers. It *is* elitist, virtually by definition. The proliferation of such societies runs counter to what seems to be required, which is some sort of forum for open and varied intellectual discussion. There are many, many people in the world who are not "gifted" and who would like some intellectual stimulation but are in a non-condusive environment. I know, I met a lot of them during my studies with the British Open University. What is needed is *not* (emphasis!) "entrance requirements" but encouragement and freedom to challenge "accepted wisdom". If the members of such a society really *were* gifted then they would recognise that one of the best uses of their talents is not in sterile intellectual masturbation but in the encouragement and active assistance of others (and in doing so, themselves) towards achieving their true potential. The last point is one of curiosity. Why do such societies protect themselves against the "hoi-polloi" by having entrance requirements? Surely peer group pressure is sufficient to maintain the "high standards", in fact, according to Mr.Ward's comments, it seems that many "high-I.Q." societies are split by internal fighting "by a few of their most gifted sophists". It seems to me that these members are the worst and that it's time for a change of tactics. Or is it just characteristic of those who join "high-I.Q." societies and seek eminent positions in them? I find some conflict between what Mr.Ward describes as the aims of the society (which are generally pretty laudable) and the way these aims are put into practice (which are generally pretty laughable). Nice idea, Mr.Ward, but it needs a lot more work before it deserves an airing on "sci.psych". In fact, "sci.psych" is probably one of the worst billboards that could have been chosen to post the original note. Cheers, Graham ====== P.S. I have a high I.Q. too, but then I'm tall as well, so that makes up for it. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Higgins @ HP Labs | Phone: (0272) 799910 x 24060 Information Systems Centre | gray@hplb.lp.hp.co.uk Bristol | gray%hplb.uucp@ukc.ac.uk U.K. | gjh%otter@hplabs
grady@Apple.COM (Grady Ward) (03/16/88)
Mr. Long of Rutgers University brings up a couple of good points about high-I.Q. clubs and their entrance requirements that deserve a response. >The GRE and SAT exams are NOT intelligence tests. I agree. Further, I believe that even the express "Intelligence Tests," such as the Weschler or Stanford-Binet, are not. Quantification in Psychology is a early 20th century fad; many of us believe, however, that there is a positive correlation with general aptitude test scores and future eminence, which is, ultimately, a better measure of intelligence (though equally racist and sexist!) And that correlation is comparatively high than for other more subjective measures we might use, such as how good one's jokes are. >The GRE and SAT exams are extremely [coachable], and I feel that any reasonably competent person who wants to could achieve the scores you require for admission. I couldn't agree more. After using a custom-designed computer program which, I hoped, strengthened skills needed for several I.Q. subtests, I increased my G.R.E. scores over 250 points to 790 V and 760 Q. There seems to be some positive transference, too, since my (uncoached) Miller's Analogies Score was 97. However, I'm not sure why you think this a good argument to eliminate the crypto-intelligence tests from our consideration. We have never claimed that intelligence, whatever it is, is innate or determined. Good nutrition, exercise, a good night's sleep, even a cup of coffee--all increase intelligence, at least temporarily. Studying for the SAT probably does too. >Not elitist? Give me a break! If you don't want to be elitist, don't have any entrance requirements. Elitist usually is usually taken to be "the choice part or segment, esp. a socially superior group." We have never claimed we are socially superior to anyone--in fact, many of us are distinctly socially inferior, with marginal jobs (the "genius strategy") and, often, the distinction of being the pariah or troublemaker in the community. Nor does an entrance requirement imply elitism: is Gallaudet College elitist if matriculation there requires deafness? Is a diving club elitist if it requires that you swim? We discriminate against random people for the same reason that Classic Comics are not my preferred reading: even though there are good things to be learned from Classic Comics, the core is rather more attenuated compared to, say, reading the literature itself. Similarly, in a mathematics conference, I presume you would be selected over me, who is very ignorant about mathematics, to present a paper. It's not that what I know about math is completely wrong, it's just that my truths/minute compared to you would undoubtedly be very low and thus more of a waste of time to the other participants in the conference. Is your mathematics conference selection therefore elitist? Of course not. People of exceptionally high intelligence (you know who you are!) are qualitatively different (but not "better") from the ordinary person. The Cincinnatus Society lets you publish your stuff and talk with others at full bandwidth, for a change. Please send inquiries and your request for a free copy of the Journal (non-members of the Cincinnatus Society can subscribe and submit articles for publication send $20.- [$25.- outside North America]) to: The Cincinnatus Society 380 N. Bayview Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" is an excellent introduction to some of the most egregious applications of I.Q. pseudoscience. Binet, Thurstone, Guilford, and Weschler all have written works on the quantification of intelligence. A brilliant early work on intelligence and its relationship to the Gaussian distribution will be found in: Francis Galton's "Hereditary Genius" --Grady Ward Now, if I may indulge myself with several of the logical fallacies that you used in your letter attacking hi-I.Q. clubs: I am completely shocked and grossed out that no one hasn't responded to your first message--the idea that mathematicians are better than everyone else is condescending and absurd--even Einstein didn't feel this way. On the other hand, I'm sure you are well-meaning and deserve all of our pity for your be- nighted view. :-)
arti@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Arti Nigam) (03/16/88)
I wonder if you have some references or can give me the data on correlations between aptitude test performance and future eminence. What exactly is eminence? I am a lay person (though I have taken graduate coursework in Intelligence Testing), and am by no means exceptionally intelligent. I have no problem at all with the existence of high-IQ societies; I recognize that people of unusually high IQs have special problems and pleasures, and that it is always nice to be in touch with some people with whom you can talk on a similar 'bandwidth' (of course, talking on a similar bandwidth has nothing at all to do with being in complete agreement; the two ideas are completely independent). For those who think that identifying oneself in this manner (being a high-IQ society member) is snobbish, I will point out this truth. High IQ, or even high 'true' intelligence, does not imply greater morality, greater wisdom, higher ethics, or even possession of Truth. I might even make the conjecture that people of high intelligence may be just as "ignorant" as 'the rest of us.' Do you think so? I don't know. As I see it, a person of high 'true' intelligence is (by definition?) able to grasp more complex material more quickly and in fewer steps (i.e., without having to specify as many intermediate steps overtly), and with less direct teaching. That isn't meant to be a complete description. But I will mention that high intelligence does not imply excellence. I am not sure whether it is causally or correlationally tied to higher levels of motivation, but it is certainly clear that motivation is also influenced by many other things which are independent of intelligence. You high IQ folks, do you understand what I am saying? (Perhaps there was a hint of humor in that last sentence; no offense.) Arti Nigam IQ unknown, but quite average, I suppose.
tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody) (03/19/88)
In article <811@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> arti@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Arti Nigam) writes: > >I wonder if you have some references or can give me the data on >correlations between aptitude test performance and future eminence. >What exactly is eminence? Not only is that the right question to ask, but I believe it points to a further conclusion. If intelligence tests are useful as indicators of future eminence, then *present* (and perhaps even past) eminence ought to be at least as useful. That is, test scores ought logically to be a sufficient but not necessary condition of entry into a society that values them only insofar as they predict something else. I admit that I was one a member of one of these societies, the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry. I joined because my ego was in a bad condition and because I thought the activity of the Society might have something to do with philosophy. The ISPE, according to its rhetoric, purported to be a society of people interested in test scores only insofar as they predict real *achievement*. So, I presented the argument that *actual* achievement ought to be a better indicator than any test score, and that the admissions criteria should be widened. The members of the society wanted none of this because, despite the rhetoric, what they really wanted was an exclusive *IQ* society. This didn't seem very philosophical to me, so I quit. -- Todd Moody * {allegra|astrovax|bpa|burdvax}!sjuvax!tmoody * SJU Phil. Dept. "The wind is not moving. The flag is not moving. Mind is moving."
langg@ga.ecn.purdue.edu (George Lang) (03/20/88)
In article <Mar.13.09.57.06.1988.17801@topaz.rutgers.edu> clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)writes: >In article <7550@apple.Apple.Com>, Grady Ward writes: > >> Membership in the Cincinnatus Society is limited to persons >> >> scoring above the level of one-tenth of one percent on standard >> >> tests of general aptitude. For example, a combined score of >> >> 1500 (Verbal + Quantitative) on the Graduate Records >> >> Examination, or 1525 on the S.A.T. is deemed adequate evidence. >> >> For aptitude tests with about a 15 point standard deviation, >> >> this level of performance is around the 150 I.Q. >> >> level. > >I've been waiting to see responses to this, and I'm shocked that there >haven't been any. > >The GRE and SAT exams are NOT intelligence tests. ETS, who likes to >make all kinds of outrageous claims, even admits to this. The GRE >and SAT exams are extremely couchable, and I feel that any reasonably >competent person who wants to could achieve the scores you require >me to be nothing more than a group of people banding together to ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >feed their egos and proclaim themselves intelligence superior on the > >-- > As an alternative, I should like to suggest, a different reason for people of a certain kind to "band together" or at least try to. Surely, you have tried to tell an excellent joke to a group of people who just looked at you with strange looks in their eyes. The fact that they did not understand it, does not change the fact that you feel somewhat idiotic. Example: A Turk walks on the road with a horse. Against him comes a Kurd. Tells him: -Where are you going with this jackass?- The Turk answers: -Foolish Kurd don't you see? This is a horse! The Kurd: -Not only see it I do, I also talk to it! Try to tell this to any heterogeneous gathering of people & will notice the different times it takes to the various individuals to laugh at the beginning and strained smiles late ones will display.... It is both natural and legitimate for people to look for their own kind, to find themselves not alone, not a pink elephant... >clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) GTL
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (03/22/88)
In article <1211@sjuvax.UUCP> tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody) writes:
.The ISPE, according to its rhetoric, purported to be a society of people
.interested in test scores only insofar as they predict real
.*achievement*. So, I presented the argument that *actual* achievement
.ought to be a better indicator than any test score, and that the
.admissions criteria should be widened. ...
Mensa has implimented something along this line. Recognizing there are
some very intelligent people who simply don't handle testing situations
well, they will also accept the opinion ("diagnosis" seems an inappropriate
term (-: ) of a licensed clinical psychologist that the candidate in
question meets or exceeds the membership requirement (98th %ile).
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@TTI.COM) Illegitimati Nil
Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483
Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax|trwrb}!ttidca!hollombehollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (03/22/88)
In article <Mar.13.09.57.06.1988.17801@topaz.rutgers.edu> clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)writes: >The GRE and SAT exams are NOT intelligence tests. ETS, who likes to >make all kinds of outrageous claims, even admits to this. In fact, ETS deliberately set up the GRE and SAT scoring systems with mean 500 and sd 100 so they wouldn't be confused with the common (mis-)conception of IQ scores. They are tests of acquired knowledge and the ability to use it. (They aren't tests of the ability to acquire knowledge because they don't take into account what knowledge the testee was or wasn't exposed to). As such, however, they are still useful for admission to high IQ societies because, while a low score _doesn't necessarily_ indicate low intelligence (it indicates ignorance), a high score _is_ a reasonable indicator of high intelligence. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@TTI.COM) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax|trwrb}!ttidca!hollombe