(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

queencallipygos
2010-08-18 11:21 am UTC (link)

Oh good Lord.

...I actually was (technically, still am) in MENSA. The one and only reason I joined was because, when I qualified, I giggled for a solid two minutes at the very idea that I WAS eligible, and then figured that was a good sign I wouldn't take it too seriously, figured I'd meet people I wouldn't have met otherwise, and signed up. I've since let my membership lapse because I ended up going to few of the member events and I thought the dues a bit steep.

But I always insisted that the thing about IQ is that it is only a measurement of CAPACITY. It's kind of like, everyone's walking around with a different size pitcher, and the people with the high IQ's just have, like, a gallon instead of a half-gallon or a quart or whatever. But the size of the pitcher is only one thing -- the rest of it is what you put IN that pitcher. Having a gallon-size pitcher isn't a great thing if you've only been filling your pitcher with rancid Strawberry Yoo-Hoo. And a quart pitcher is just fine if you've filled it with Veuve Cleuquot.

So simply saying "I am in MENSA" does not lend your ideas any more credibility, unless someone is expressly saying something about how "only morons could like X". Which I don't think happened here -- it was just a matter of "X sucks".

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	queencallipygos 2010-08-18 11:23 am UTC (link)
	....Although, I kind of joke the very same thing about being smart enough to not pay to take the qualifying test. There are other test transcripts they accept to gauge your eligibility by (they take SAT scores from certain years, and my scores qualified me, so I just ordered my SAT transcript and sent it to them and it cost me nothing). (Reply to this)(Parent)

	moonjaguar 2010-08-18 03:05 pm UTC (link)
	But I don't like Veuve Clicquot, can't I have a pitcher of fresh chocolate Yoo-hoo instead? And no Cathy, please. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	queencallipygos 2010-08-18 03:30 pm UTC (link)
	Chocolate is way better than strawberry. Go for it. ;-) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	persona 2010-08-18 04:51 pm UTC (link)
	I like the chocolate quite a lot, but I've never had the strawberry. What's it taste like? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	come_love_sleep 2010-08-18 04:56 pm UTC (link)
	Dying. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	persona 2010-08-18 05:12 pm UTC (link)
	8( (Reply to this)(Parent)

	librarianmouse 2010-08-19 02:20 am UTC (link)
	I've never tried strawberry Yoo-hoo, but if it tastes anything like strawberry Instant Breakfast, no amount of mouthwash can make it go away. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	persona 2010-08-19 04:44 pm UTC (link)
	I actually like the strawberry Instant Breakfast. Then again, I'll happily mix milk and fruit juice, so maybe my taste buds are broken. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	mmanurere 2010-08-18 09:58 pm UTC (link)
	But I always insisted that the thing about IQ is that it is only a measurement of CAPACITY. It's not a "measurement" of anything -- it's a class of standardized tests designed to produce a particular statistical spread in the population. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

ecchaniz0r
2010-08-18 10:47 pm UTC (link)

If it were a measurement of something at all, it'd be one hell of an arbitrary one. F'r example: The guidance counselors at my elementary school used to run those dang mini tests on the enrichment kids every so often (lord only knows WHY) and if they caught you on a bad day your IQ would 'drop' a few points for your the remembering how to divide fractions on account of because your stomach was tying itself in a knot.

("Ecchan, why is your math score down to a fourth-grade level?" "*nrmgrhnghgn.*" "I...see...?" "I got scared and forgot where the numerator goes um miss can I please get a drink because I think my pancreas wants to jump out of my navel now.")

So yeah, arbitrary and not real accurate as a measurement of intelligence - which has an arbitrary definition half of the time anyhow. They're starting to try to divide it up now into spatial and so forth in effort to get "more accurate tests" (it's said), but it's still very much a word that means whatever the test wants it to mean, and besides which means something different to almost everyone.

The word 'arbitrary' has now lost all meaning but I can't think of another that works as well :B And this is a buttload of tl;dr I've gotten up to just to say 'IAWTC'.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	windex_junkie 2010-08-21 08:51 am UTC (link)
	Holy fuck, that's vile. DDD: In my school, they didn't bother screening a kid for the gifted/talented program unless they kept finishing an hour's worth of work in 5-15 minutes. And also, we were not treated like Hitler Youth and nobody insulted us if we did not remember all 25 items in the memory box. D: (Reply to this)(Parent)

	kylenne 2010-08-19 02:36 am UTC (link)
	And a class of Eurocentric and racist standardized tests at that. I'd rant for days on that but there's enough unfunny in this. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	windex_junkie 2010-08-21 08:55 am UTC (link)
	What do you mean?! Everyone knows who Sue, Mary, Bob, and Jack are, so if an ESL kid fails a reading comprehension test that depends on correctly identifying the gender of antiquated Western names, it means they're just a lazy foreigner who isn't capable of assimilating. (Or, in other words: There's gender fail, too.) (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -