grady@Apple.COM (Grady Ward) (03/04/88)
For a free copy of the Cincinnatus Journal, a quarterly publication containing articles of interest to extremely gifted people, please write: The Cincinnatus Society 380 N. Bayview Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94086 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. According to a late edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, more than 40% of persons with an I.Q. of 140 or greater are not promoted during at least one of their four high school years. This catastrophe has not attracted much attention because it represents a loss of opportunity rather than destruction of existing, tangible work. But, looking around us, we seem to need as many Einstein's, Voltaire's, and Madame Curie's, as we can muster, maybe to even just survive as a culture, but unquestionably to survive as a culture worth perpetuating. To this end, the Cincinnatus Society strives to be nurturing, not to be elitist, and to serve the members' need to communicate with one another, especially among those who are isolated geographically or socially. We have members in England, Australia, Spain, and Sweden, as well as most of the United States. We have octogenarians as well as teen-agers, retired physicians and working attorneys and scientists. If you want to be among people who are not afraid to be passionately intellectual and vitally curious--about everything--please write for your copy of our Journal.
gjh@otter.hple.hp.com (Graham Higgins) (03/07/88)
Some time ago the pseudo-science magazine "Omni" published a 4-sigma I.Q. test designed by one of the leading lights of Mensa. The "4-sigma" tag to the test reflected the designer's belief that successful attempts at the test could only be made by people whose I.Q. was at least 4 standard deviation intervals above the mean - I cannot be bothered to work out right now what that is supposed to map out to (160/170+, I think). Some of the rationale behind the test was included with the questions. The *reported fact* (please note the hearsay nature of this source) which gave me most cause for thought was that the test designer had created the test to aid him in his finding "a woman that he didn't have to talk down to." (well, that's what the gist of it was). It looks like there's intelligence and "intelligence". Cheers, Graham Higgins ============== ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody) (03/10/88)
In article <3660001@otter.hple.hp.com> gjh@otter.hple.hp.com (Graham Higgins) writes: >Some time ago the pseudo-science magazine "Omni" published a 4-sigma I.Q. >test designed by one of the leading lights of Mensa. The "4-sigma" tag to >the test reflected the designer's belief that successful attempts at the >test could only be made by people whose I.Q. was at least 4 standard >deviation intervals above the mean - I cannot be bothered to work out right >now what that is supposed to map out to (160/170+, I think). Some of the >rationale behind the test was included with the questions. The *reported >fact* (please note the hearsay nature of this source) which gave me most >cause for thought was that the test designer had created the test >to aid him in his finding "a woman that he didn't have to talk down to." >(well, that's what the gist of it was). It looks like there's intelligence >and "intelligence". The author of this test was Kevin Langdon, of California (Berkeley area, I think). Indeed, I think the test was called the "Langdon Adult Intelligence Test." It selected candidates for the "Four Sigma Society", which Langdon also founded. I believe (but am not sure) that that society is now defunct. I read an interview with Langdon (not in _Omni_) in which he was reported to have made that remark about women. The cutoff IQ for the 4Sigma was, by the way, 164. Many people do not realize that there is something of an "IQ subculture" out there. Mensa is only its most visible landmark. There is also the "Triple Nine Society" (IQ = 150+), "Intertel" (IQ=140, I think), the "International Society for Philosophical Enquiry" (IQ=150+, plus a "vocabulary test"), the "Cincinnatus Society" (IQ=150+), the "Prometheus Society" (this may be the old 4Sigma), and the "Mega Society" (scores at the one/million level). Langdon has even been instrumental in organizing an inter-society "IQmenical Conference" once or twice. The _Omni_ thing was something of a scandal. Langdon received *thousands* of paid answer sheets, and was unable to cope with the volume. Most of those people never received their scores, and complained to _Omni_, and so forth... A couple of years later, _Omni_ published another IQ test, this one by Ron Hoeflin. It was the "Mega Test", designed to select candidates for the Mega Society. The founder of the Cincinnatus Society is Grady Ward. He is on the net, and may indeed want to share with us his views on the nature and rationale of IQ societies. -- Todd Moody * {allegra|astrovax|bpa|burdvax}!sjuvax!tmoody * SJU Phil. Dept. "The wind is not moving. The flag is not moving. Mind is moving."
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (03/12/88)
In article <3660001@otter.hple.hp.com> gjh@otter.hple.hp.com (Graham Higgins) writes: >Some time ago the pseudo-science magazine "Omni" published a 4-sigma I.Q. >test designed by one of the leading lights of Mensa. ... I smell another IQ debate coming. Oh, well. I guess this group's more appropriate than most. Anyway, I didn't know that test was designed by a Mensan (or that Mensa had any "leading lights" (-: ). Live and learn. >... The "4-sigma" tag to >the test reflected the designer's belief that successful attempts at the >test could only be made by people whose I.Q. was at least 4 standard >deviation intervals above the mean ... Real tests are carefully normed against a sample of the general population, usually statistically sampled by census tract to insure proper representation. Belief has nothing to do with it. I don't know whether or not this test was properly normed. It costs a _lot_ of money to do it right. >... - I cannot be bothered to work out right >now what that is supposed to map out to (160/170+, I think). ... Before we start wrangling, let's clear up this misconception. The value of a standard deviation is totally dependent on the scoring method of the test. For the WAIS it's 15. For the Stanford-Binet it's 16. For the SAT it's 100 (with mean 500). Other tests have other sigmas. This means any reference to an "IQ" score is meaningless unless you know the mean and standard deviation of the scores for the test in question. What's important, and nominally constant across tests, is the general population percentile rank represented by the test score. Four standard deviations represents, approximately, the 99.9997th %ile (I think. My stats books are at home). That's a 160 on the WAIS, a 164 on the S-B and impossible on the SAT (which only goes up to 800). For reference, Mensa's admission requirement is the 98th %ile, Intertel requires the 99th, Triple-nine requires the 99.9th (of course), as does, I believe, the Cincinnatus Society. There are a number of other "high IQ" organizations with various requirements among them. Your mileage may vary. Now, let the flames begin! (-:{ -- 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