Re: rec.org.mensa

On 9 Jun 2006 10:31:34 -0700, "Reef Fish"
<Large_Nassau_Grouper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Wilbur Slice wrote:
On 8 Jun 2006 20:32:58 -0700, "Reef Fish"
<Large_Nassau_Grouper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But did you mean I have close to .02 understanding or .02%
understanding of the tests?

If you truly don't know what I meant, then nevermind - just ignore
this whole thread.

Why so? I thought you made the same mistake

Huh? You thought *I* made a mistake? What sort of mistake? I was
merely pointing out your mistake, I made no other claims.

as the Miami
City Council which passed a law to reduce the property assessment
value to .5% or its previously assessed value rather than .5, as
they intended. The red-faced politicians made national headlines.

What?

Huh?

What are you on about now? .5 what?





And if we can assume that they are
*any* good at all, a person with an IQ of 100 is *never* going to
score in the top 2% (of a normal population) and a person with an IQ
of 150 is *always* going to score in the top 2%.

May I ask HOW you arrived at your figures?

Because an IQ score of 100 is not in the top 2% of the general
population. And if the tests are so wildly inaccurate as you imply
(so wild, in fact, as to be indistinguishable from random answers of a
roomful of monkeys making marks with No. 2 pencils), then they are of
zero value. If the tests are accurate at all, then someone with a
"normal" IQ should never score in the top 2%

You are as clueless as ever even after my explanation to you. <sigh>
OTOH, I think you blabbered BEFORE you read far enough to see
my explanation that comes after the part above.

No, you just kept barging along as if IQ tests were equivalent to
rolling dice or flipping coins.




Let's work on your theory that a person with IQ 100 is NEVER going
to score in the top 2% (of a normal population).

< HUMONGOUS SNIP >

I assume you can follow the statistics of that .02% understanding
of statistics with which you generously credited me.

There is undoubtedly some variation in the scores on these tests -
even within one person across several times he takes the test. But as
I said before, if the tests fluctuate as wildly as you imply, then
they are worthless.

You STILL missed the points. I guess you're not nearly as bright as
you think you were.

LOL! Yes... well, I will admit to missing you points. And I'll
stipulate that at least ONE of us isn't as bright as we might think
ourselves.

But still, your original "analysis" was that if someone took 2 tests,
he had a 4% chance of scoring in the top 2% on at least one of them.
And, furthermore, that to be in Mensa, a person only has to be in the
top 4% of the population.

And, of course, you're just wrong about several things. But do carry
on.





I can speak first hand about YOUR brash statement,

Wilbur Slice> a person with an IQ of 150 is *always* going to score
in the top 2%.

I am a member of TNS (Triple Nine Society; membership #171)
with a certified IQ in excess of its minimum qualification of 150.
I can assure you that I can score lower than the top 2% on an
IQ test on a bad day.


I believe you. (Well, I partly believe you)

Which part DON'T you believe?

If you truly don't know what I meant, then nevermind - just ignore
this whole thread.




WS> it indicates that you have close to a .02% understanding of
WS> the tests (and of the rational application of statistics).

Oh, I forgot one minor little detail, that I have a Ph.D. degree in
statistics,

And to think you coulda spent your youth playing pool...

I've done that too, and participated in four different varsity sports
in college where I didn't have to spend any time in academic
course to excel.

LOL!! Yeah... that's the ticket.




at Yale

In George W Bush's class?

He never got past the undergrad degree at Yale. I was at
the graduate school there.

Well, then, I *am* impressed. <snicker>




and had a citation in a "Who's Who in the World"
in 1984

LOL!! Wooowww!!!

(I used to get invitations to be in that back when I was a teenager. I
think the major qualification is that your check doesn't bounce)

That shows how little you know about different Who's Who
publications. For those that invited YOU, what you said is probably
true.

Do you even KNOW anyone who's listed in ANY "Who's Who in
the WORLD", not in the USA, or in some State in the USA, or
in some county, or Boys in some Prep school in Podunk Town --
which was probably the one you were invited.

More to the point - does anyone actually KNOW anyone who has actually
READ or even SEEN a copy of "Who's Who in the Milky Way"? LOL! (That
is, anyone other than those people who were "cited" in it and
therefore bought a copy or two)




I throw away in my trash can more invitations ABOVE the State
level (on Men, or specific Professional Areas, or restrictions
just to get suckers to get listed so that they can sell to the
LIBRARIES). You FOOL! Even the 2nd and 3rd rate
Who's Who biographical sources don't require anyone to
buy.

LOL!! Well then, sign up. It clearly helps your self-esteem.

But more importantly, are you in Wikipedia? <chuckle> MySpace?




that was longer than that of Ronald Reagan (when he
was President that year) and Bill Clinton (when he was only Gov.
of Arkansas) in the same issue. :-)


Wow! I am SOOOO impressed.

I know. That was a gross overkill. Mea Culpa.

LOL!!



I called those facts a "curiosity" -- it reflected more Reagan's LACK
of credentials and respect by anyone than whatever credentials
OTHERS in that source have. Even the Dragon Lady (that's Nancy)
had a longer citation than Ronald Reagan. That's why most
people don't even know how to spell his NAME long after he had
been the US Prez. He is often referred to Ronald Regen, the
flunky he appointed to some position.

ROTFL!!!

You mean Donald Regan (note the spelling, since you were mocking
others for not knowing how to spell Reagan - and note the first name),
Secretary of the Treasury and Chief of Staff. "Some position". LOL!
Hey - maybe he's in Who's Who, too?



Check it out. That's Marquis's Who's Who in the World. (1984).

A friend of mind was cited in the 1989 edition, that was the last
year of Reagan's US presidency. He said Ronald Reagan's
citation was still shorter than mine. :-) Check it out.

LOL!! Sure - got a cite?




"Bob" was more notable than the President
of the United States! I would think that the fact that "Bob's"
citation was longer than the President of the United States should
maybe give "Bob" a clue about the value of that publication, but maybe
he only has a .02% understanding of that as well.

Perhaps Wilbur Slice can provide us with a reference for his citation
in

"Who's Who in Mental Midgets in the Podunk County in N. Dekota". :)/

Yeah - page 36.

BTW - for someone who criticizes other people's spelling and claims to
be so smart, your spelling really sucks, "Bob".


-- Bob.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: rec.org.mensa
    ... Wilbur Slice> a person with an IQ of 150 is *always* going to score ... WS> it indicates that you have close to a .02% understanding of ... had a longer citation than Ronald Reagan. ... citation was longer than the President of the United States should ...
    (rec.org.mensa)
  • Re: rec.org.mensa
    ... Wilbur Slice> a person with an IQ of 150 is *always* going to score ... WS> it indicates that you have close to a .02% understanding of ... had a longer citation than Ronald Reagan. ... citation was longer than the President of the United States should ...
    (rec.org.mensa)
  • Re: Another obituary for the CD
    ... There's also a distinction between understanding history and "bearing ... LOL! ... Ditto Pakistan. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: Another obituary for the CD
    ... There's also a distinction between understanding history and "bearing ... you being a good christian and all. ... LOL! ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: Rachels New and Improved Smoke-Free Blog For Dummies (Occasi...
    ... lol. ... to a whole new level of understanding of Bob Dylan's 115th Dream. ... I had a dream about being a lesbian last night. ... out she was an expert on Judaism, and could teach me everything I want ...
    (rec.music.dylan)