How NOT To Write A Blog Comment

Dr. Abbie Salny - interviewed several years ago. She was responsible for the decision to no longer accept the SAT as an aptitude test and hence as an alternative entry test for Mensa.

This post could be put under the banner of educational, mainly for the benefit of anyone who wishes to render an extended comment expressing a point of view in response to a post. In this case the (recent) comment in question is in response to an August 11, 2013 post regarding Mensa ceasing to use the SAT (and other tests) for entry because they were no longer deemed aptitude tests but achievement.

The commenter's first problem is posting with no profile, as "Unknown" which undermines the cogency of his or her POV from the outset. Despite that, I am ok with posting an unknown's (no profile) comment but do expect the person to then make the case and with such clarity there is no wiggle room for misinterpretation.  But this was not done. Below I give the comment and my criticisms of each section, which others may want to note for future reference:

----------------

Am I the only one who's even looked up the changes? In case you haven't, here's what they did to make it test "exclusively what has been taught in school:"

-Removed antonyms (because they relied too much on prior knowledge)
-Changed the number of verbal questions from 85 to 78
-Replaced the TSWE with two 15-minute math and verbal sections at the end of the test
-Added ten "open-response" math problems
-Allowed calculators for the math sections
-Increased the amount of reading comprehension questions to compose ~50% of the verbal.

-----------

The intro is all wrong. As if the writer was never taught how to make his or her case in representing a  clear point of view when staking out a position or opinion. Instead of initiating the comment with a clear position he immediately asks a question about "looking up the changes" to the SAT. This makes one suspect that the topic or argument concerns the changes, which are then stated.

But where is it all leading?

The writer goes on:

As you can see, that totally makes the SAT cover absolutely NOTHING but learned material. Literally just learned material.

Actually, we don't know that because no reasoning  has been offered showing that these changes constitute only "learned material".  The reader is expected to just assume they do, i.e. removing antonyms because "they rely too much on prior knowledge". How so? He has not explained. In what way do  antonyms do this and for what kind of prior knowledge? (For reference, the GRE aptitude test - so designated by Mensa- that I took had a significant section on antonyms. *) All we have then is a veritable vacuum when one would like to see justification. Even by this point, if I was marking him on an essay I'd have him at D-minus.

More to come:

Oh, and with the ACT?

-Recentered the English and Math scores
-Replaced the SOCIAL STUDIES and NATURAL SCIENCES sections with general reading and scientific reasoning sections.
-Made the English less grammar-based and put more emphasis on writing skills (once again changing it to exclusively learn-able stuff)

You know, you cannot learn the causes fall of the Roman Empire, or scientific facts.

Remember in history class, when before tests the teacher told you that he didn't actually teach anything and it was all up to your innate mental abilities to know about events such as the Dark Ages and the Incans? Studying history is completely pointless.

--------------------------

Here s/he jumps completely from the basis of the English-Math part of the ACT to history ("causes of the fall of the Roman Empire") and "scientific facts" - which we are informed "you cannot learn".. Again, no explanation of why.   He then rails against putting more emphasis on writing skills (which it is evident he needs) and claims this is tantamount to "exclusively learnable stuff", but with no explanation or argument how he goes from A to B.  He either assumes here the reader is privy to some inside knowledge, or is simply going to take his word.

The diversion to "the fall of the Roman empire" is itself distracting and displays a lack of coherent thought or argument, not to mention historical insight.  He also makes an unsupported, ridiculous claim that one "cannot learn the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire" or scientific facts - which is nonsense. Of course one can learn the putative reason for the Roman Empire's fall which is largely attributed to military overstretch. As for scientific facts, last I taught a calculus physics class I knew not one student who hadn't learned already that all objects fall freely  (at the acceleration g)  in Earth's gravitational field .   Though g can vary from place to place because the Earth's radius slightly varies place to place. SO what the hell is he talking about?


The "unknown" would have done better by confining attention to why the changes in the English -Math parts of the ACT he lists were off base, but doesn't. We are just dragged along in this nebulous aside and with no idea what the writer's central point is.

Then there's the further diversion to some innominate  "history class", and the rapid conclusion "it's completely pointless" - again, without making a clear, cogent case for claiming this.  We are merely expected to accept the "pointless" assertion without a single reason or even example.

Then we read this:

And what's even philosophical about changing a test from aptitude to achievement? "We need to sound smart."

At this point the writer has me scratching my head. Is he with Mensa's change  vis-a-vis the SAT or against it?  He seems to be with it, in asking why the change from aptitude to achievement, but it is not clear again because his argumentation and presentation is too weak and incoherent.  One is also led to inquire the insertion of the "philosophical"  attribute - as if the change is ultimately reduced to one of testing philosophy - which it isn't.   It is based on specific test parameters that distinguish the set of aptitude type questions from those of achievement only.

For example, a physics achievement question might be: Describe the principle of operation of a basic, glass-enclosed greenhouse.

But an aptitude type problem would be:

Describe the nature of the thermal insulation you'd require on Mars (solar constant  =  539  Wm^-2 )and how you would assemble it to be equivalent to a 1000 m^-3  greenhouse  on Earth. Indicate the thickness of the material needed.

Lastly, we read:

And when changing it, the College Board actually said that the SAT was never supposed to be something unable to be learned. They said they were making it better-aligned with school material. Therefore, the pre-1994 tests are also 100% achievement-based because they said so. After-all, corporations never lie.

TL;DR: No one in Mensa even bothered to look up the content changes.

----------------

In my response to his remarks I agreed with his take about the College Board in the top paragraph, but not with his take in his last line.

How does he KNOW Mensa "never bothered to look up the content changes"?  He makes the statement baldly without any evidence, only assuming such because my original post did not mention any particulars.  But Dr. Salny did make it clear in the Mensa Research Journal that this was done and she showed the parameters considered.  Just because "Unknown" didn't see it in my post doesn't mean it wasn't done.

In my response comment I pointed out that Mensa had indeed done its duty in regard to the initial content changes of the SAT, which is why they ceased classifying it as an aptitude test. But Mensa did not keep track of content changes to achievement tests thereafter. Why would they have?

A snarky reply was offered: "Let me just say that you're lucky the SAT didn't have many reading comprehension questions back in the day. "

To which I responded:

Actually, I don't believe I am the one with the reading comprehension issues. I believe it is you, Mr. or Miss "Unknown". Part of the problem is also your vague writing, in being unable to make a strong and coherent argument. Is your primary case or issue with looking up the changes, or the changes themselves? Are you trying to argue that aptitude tests don't really make the cut any more than achievement tests? Or are you just arguing that Mensa failed to take each into account?

Try to focus your mind more and present a case for or against whatever it is you are arguing - pro or con. You presented the stats applicable to the changes, now make the argument and form a solid conclusion with a minimum of distracted prose and nebulosity.

All of which is substantiated by reference to my preceding criticisms.

The takeaway here is if you have a comment to make which is concerning a post, and is representing a specific point of view in response, then you are obliged to make that POV clear. The comment in question did not, but we shall hope that at least something in the way of more coherent writing is learned from it.

---------------------

* Some of the GRE antonym questions from 1985 Verbal Section:

Each question contains a word in capital letters then five lettered choices. Choose the one that is most nearly opposite in meaning to the word in capitals:

1. SATURNINE:

(A) genial (B) devout   (C) distinguished  (D) quick-witted  (E) heavy-handed


2. ABEYANCE:

(A) fulfillment  (B) activity  (C) renascence (D) resistance  (E) continuance


3. MUNIFICENCE:

(A) appreciation (B) deception  (C) modesty (D) stinginess  (E) anxiety


4. JUDICIOUS:

(A) insecure  (B) unwise  (C) inept  (D) lacking consequence  (E) without probability


5. DISSEMINATE:

(A) deceive  (B) garner  (C)  constrain ( D) confirm ( E) conjoin

Misconceptions About MENSA - They Exist In Abundance

Over the years as a Mensa  (as well as Intertel) member,  I've encountered so many misconceptions - expressed as opinions or misgivings in different settings - that it's difficult to keep count. Below,  I've  tried to distill each misconception into the form of a question and then either allow it to be addressed by some original author (e.g. in a cited source like Mensa Bulletin, or Intertel Integra) or by myself


Question: If you're so smart, then why aren't you rich?

This one was addressed by a letter writer in the February, 2002 issue of the Mensa Bulletin
--------
The things that our society rewards monetarily are at odds with the sensibilities of many intelligent people. In other words, I know what makes money, and I don't agree with it on a moral or a personal basis. Increasingly, our society rewards a select few who produce concrete products or processes while leaving less concrete producers in the dust. An example is the fact that a college professor who helps to produce businessmen makes less money than any of his students when they finish.

Making money requires a specific type of creativity that is not inherent in intelligence. In order to make money, one must have a product or service to sell. Many intelligent people are operationally intelligent; they are good at the big picture. This does not, however, ensure any specific knowledge of any subject that can be turned into a product or service. One may be brilliant at knowing how to run a company, yet have no clue what to sell.

I think that many intelligent people see keenly the problems that our focus on money can create. Therefore, for better or worse, some react by developing a distaste for money, seeing it as a sign of greed or materialism. Some, I believe, actively avoid making money, though it is probably unconscious to them.

Intelligence is a distraction. Intelligent people have many interests besides their job. Therefore, they may not want to focus as wholeheartedly on their job. Often these interests are esoteric and totally removed from making money.

That's just a few of the patterns I've noticed with myself. Ironically, I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I have wanted to find a business partner to complement the skills that I have. I have good operational abilities, but I am not one to invent a product on my own. Given the proper partner, however, I feel I could help shape the idea and be instrumental in making it work in the market. I actually have spoken with one member in my local group about this, but I am very interested in forming an entrepreneurs' group where some of us can get together and discuss how to make money together in a constructive and moral way.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: I already know I'm super smart so why would I want to join Mensa?  Just to show off?

This is a commonplace misperception on why people join Mensa. (Including that we all want to "show off" as part of a "brain club".) Not so!  We join to find fellowship with other intelligent people by way of shared interests, and shared aptitudes and potential, including use of language. Studies have found, for example, that even a 15 point difference in I.Q. can make it extremely difficult  to communicate with others - whether siblings, or members of other clubs that one may belong to.  If the difference is 25 points or greater, the communication gap becomes nearly impossible to surmount.

The 'normals'  will either find you "elitist", too "smart alecky" for your own good, or an insufferable bore or pedant. In other words, they will inevitably react with distrust based on a misperception that you just want to lord it over them and make them out to be dummies. This chasm can be even greater, for example, if you also excelled academically in high school, but none of your siblings did. (In this case, bear in mind we are looking at achievement not aptitude).

As for a person being convinced he or she is "super smart" and not having to join an I.Q. society to prove it, so be it. But bear in mind until you actually show evidence of that, you may be misled. On the other hand, if you have taken an aptitude test in the past (ACT, SAT or GRE) that shows you meet Mensa levels of acceptance, e.g. 1250 total for the GRE, then indeed you are quite justified not joining to "prove" anything. But again I remind readers we aren't joining to validate braininess per se but rather to find others who share our brain power with whom we can more easily communicate or interact without misunderstandings.

Question: If you're such a genius, why haven't you invented or created something remarkable?

First, Mensa acceptance - upper 2 percent of  scores in intelligence tests- is not at genius level (at least I.Q. 145) but 130. This is not to say that proven geniuses aren't members of Mensa, but rather the acceptance standard is not at genius level.  It is at a very gifted level.

As for not inventing something remarkable this again harks back to the original answer to Q. 1 on why many smart people aren't also rich. That is, we aren't necessarily focused on making money (we see it as a tool rather than end in itself) nor are we focused on creating or making a product. We often have so many diverse interests, multiple distractions,  that we can't muster the focus needed for a unique or original creation. Back to the original answer, we can often make a contribution if we have the right partner to work with - for example one whose practical expertise complements our abstract insights. Or one who is expert at marketing and public relations to neutralize our aversion to selling because of social anxiety.

Question: Why do you smart asses think you're experts at everything?

Well, because we are interested in everything! We feel if we can read and learn about a subject we can achieve a certain level of competence and even expertise to write about it. We can't help it if "Densans" don't feel as curious about as many different subjects, or are too lazy (or uninterested) to write about them or develop an expertise. That is their problem, not ours, but it gets to the core of why an I.Q. gap really does exist and leads to misunderstandings between people - even siblings.

At the same time there is such a phenomenon as mistaken expertise or inflated expertise which is very typical of Mensa, as well as Intertel members. Thus, because a person belongs to Mensa or Intertel he or she may believe they are qualified to expound on any subject, whether global warming, the financial crash of 2008, or the JFK assassination - without doing the heavy lifting (in research) before opinionating.

Again, a highly intelligent (or any)  person is qualified to expound on whatever s/he wants  IF they do the necessary background reading, research. If they don't they aren't.  The point made here is that special credentials (or even appointments) are not necessary to achieve expertise in a subject.

Question: How come so few Mensans have college degrees?

This appears to have arisen as a casual perception at some anti-Mensa websites, but without supplying any supporting data. But at the root of the question is confusion between aptitude and achievement. This also goes to the heart of why the SAT and GRE are no longer accepted as valid entry qualifying tests for Mensa or Intertel any longer. In a word, because these are now achievement  tests and not aptitude tests. Dr Abby Salny perhaps elucidated the differences best in the March, 1994 issue of the Mensa Bulletin (p. 9) in response to a reader's question on why the ACT and SAT  were no longer accepted as qualifying evidence for Mensa:

"The ACT went to content mastery testing some time ago. That means they were measuring learned knowledge and achievement. The SAT has not only changed to content achievement but has even changed its name from the Scholastic Aptitude Test to the Scholastic Achievement Test. The Medical College test has also gone content-oriented with two major sections, Physical Sciences and Biology.

Mensa's Constitution says 'IQ test or equivalent'. This means we can take a test that measures learning aptitude, but not a test that measures exclusively what has been taught in school. The whole purpose of Mensa was not to reward high scholastic achievement but to recognize intellectual giftedness. The two are not synonymous. "

In like manner, Mensa recognized from early that requiring a university degree did not jibe with the divergence of definition in respect to intellectual giftedness and achievement. Hence, one could attain high scholastic achievement, get a college degree, but still not have convincingly showed intellectual aptitude - which is different as Dr. Salny points out.  Thus, Mensa membership includes a diverse array of people, many of whom lack any college degrees - but their performance (say on the Mensa test) qualifies them for entry.

Let me also remark here that it is precisely the typical Mensan's learning aptitude that makes him or her a prime candidate to expound on a variety of topics that may not be peculiar to his primary specialty. Because he has the potential to learn about new things he will be enabled to put it into practice and write about those things, unlike the "normal" who - never having been versed in high finance (credit default swaps, bond market, CMOs, etc.) - would rather demur.


Question: If you guys are so bright, why aren't you better behaved?

Well, because intellectual aptitude and morality (including ethical behavior) are two different spheres of human life. Hence, we will - like any club or demographic - have our share of felons, porn stars and others  -even those with disagreeable temperaments. We are not a society of saints, after all, or monks. Intellect then, can function in many ways and that is one reason Mensa is clear to assert it embraces no particular political or religious stance either.


Question: Isn't it kind of dumb to have to pass a test to qualify for membership in a high IQ society then pay a yearly membership fee to stay in?

No one "has to pass" any test and it might surprise you to know most Mensa members qualify for membership simply on the basis of a past aptitude test like the SAT or GRE. (In my case a 1330 total on the GRE).  Others, yes, if they have no aptitude test to validate qualification must take the Mensa entry exam.  But again, no one is twisting anyone's arm to join, people do it of their own volition.

Paying dues is not a biggie either, given any club needs money to support its activities. This is a literal no brainer. In Mensa's case, dues not only support The Mensa Bulletin, but the research of the Mensa Foundation as well as Annual Gatherings (AGs). Again, this is no different from any other organization, including the American Astronomical Society and American Mathematical Society to which I also belong.

Alas, as long as there are people who hold grudges against Mensa for any reason, including failing to make the cut, see e.g. https://psmag.com/i-failed-a-mensa-test-twice-dcc5c1e4163d#.o71cnduyu

there will be sore losers and whiners, as well as sour grapes appeals. It goes with the territory! Those who'd like to try a small quiz to get the flavor for the sort of questions asked on the actual test can go here:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-01-04/entertainment/8902220824_1_typists-chickens-eggs

 To access the Mensa practice test go to this link:

https://www.us.mensa.org/join/mht/
 

Where Do You Stand on the Sample GRE Aptitude Test Scale?

First the answers to the last set of quantitative questions:

Section I:

1. (B), 2. (E), 3. (E), 4. (E)

Section II:

1. (E), 2. (E), 3. (E), 4. (B), 5. (D), 6. (B)
---------------------

Now, assuming you followed the time constraints, add up your correct responses which will be some total out of 25 for the verbal, and out of 20 for the quantitative.  These yield a "raw" score which - when scaled to the no. of questions (relative to the original test) yields a comparative GRE score out of 800. These are given below:

Verbal:

Raw score/ 25..............................GRE analog
______________________________________

25.....................................................800

24....................................................750

23....................................................720

22....................................................690

21....................................................660

20....................................................630

19....................................................610

18....................................................580

17....................................................550

16....................................................500

15....................................................460

14....................................................400
---------------------------------------------------


Quantitative:

Raw score/ 20................................GRE analog
______________________________________

20....................................................800

19....................................................740

18....................................................710

17................................................... 680

16....................................................650

15....................................................620

14....................................................590

13....................................................550

12....................................................510

11....................................................470

10 ..................................................430
-----------------------------------------------------------


Now, add up the verbal plus quantitative  GRE analog scores. If you got 1250 or over, you'd likely qualify for Mensa (remember this is a sample facsimile test of the 1985 version, not the actual one with same no. of questions, time etc.). To get an idea of comparative (estimated, i.e.  plus or minus 3 pts)) IQ to sample GRE scores, see : http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/greiq.aspx

Mail Brane: Readers Seeking Answers to Questions

Q. I hope you can help! My husband, age 38, had  been diagnosed 2 years ago with aggressive prostate cancer (classified adenocarcinoma with stage T2(c) in biopsy) and had to have the radical prostatectomy or so he was told. The urologist told him he would need to begin penile rehabilitation as soon as the Foley catheter was removed but he refused. He said the pain was still too unbearable after the surgery and couldn't bear any erections from Viagra or whatever. To make a long story short his initial resistance to penile rehab - such as you described in your October 14 blog last year- became hardened. Gradually, he became incapable of getting any erections and his penis deformed. Much like you described. What can be done? Anything? - Barbara B., Orlando FL

A. At this stage it's doubtful since if the therapy isn't done soon after surgery and erections are allowed to lapse as you described, the tissue damage - due to lack of consistent blood flow - becomes permanent. There may be some surgery that can correct the deformation (I presume you mean the U-shape that Dr. John Mulhall describes in his book that I referenced in that Oct. blog) but the urologist would have to weigh in on that. This, of course, is a cautionary tale that those who have radical prostate surgery need to follow this  with penile rehab as soon as possible, though yes, there may be some residual pain. Your question also seems to imply that a radiation therapy treatment might have been better, but generally at the stage you described (T2c) it isn't an option.  Also, remember the effects of radiation increase over time, as tissues become hardened by the delayed radiation impact. This is also why it's essential to remain sexually active, whatever mechanism is employed.

Q. I was disheartened to read in your July 24 post that Colorado Springs had opted out of the marijuana retail business! Don't they know how much money they are losing? Are there any counties in the state that plan to implement the retail businesses? How many have opted out so far? - Clint, Pompano Beach FL

A. At last count some 57 communities in the state had opted out, but 21 remain in play -seeking rational ways to implement legal guidelines for MJ retail stores. Among those latter are Denver, and Aurora, CO. Almost to a tee, the opt- outs are in conservative counties, though they seem to forget they are flouting the voters' will by their opt out (and in many of those counties, Amendment 64 passed!)  I believe they might well pay at the polls next time any of the respective city council members come up for re-election. It never pays to piss off the voters! The mistake was probably making any "opt out" part of Amendment 64 in the first place. It gave too facile a way to deal with the nettlesome problem of how to regulate, where the controls would be and the level of taxation. It was a cheap way out, a cop out. So, I guess cities like Colorado Springs will have to keep on getting revenue from other sources, say like becoming or staying top national speed traps.

Q. Thanks for your post on being child free! (Aug. 18th). My husband and I were delighted to read and now feel much better about our childless choice. But how do you deal with nosey people that persistently inquire why we're childless? It really bugs me! - Delores, Sioux City, IA

A. Tell them: "Mind your own business, please!  Haven't you enough to do with your own time as opposed to meddling in others' lives".

Q. I've been wanting to join Mensa for a long time, but none of my past standardized tests (SAT in 1995, GRE in 2002) have been found acceptable. I dread taking the actual Mensa test because I hear it's a lot harder. Is this true? What can I expect? - Ricardo, Mt. Shasta, CA

A. It's not that big a deal. Below is an image from the U.S. Mensa site showing some of those taking a recent test.

The Mensa Admission Test takes two hours to complete and includes two tests featuring questions involving logic and deductive reasoning. If you score at or above the 98th percentile on either of the two tests, you'll qualify and be invited to join Mensa. Score below....well I understand there is a 5% society (The International High IQ Society) that accepts entrants at the 95th percentile level.

If you'd like a practice test (always a good idea) you can also get an idea if you're Mensa level by taking the home test, e.g. https://www.us.mensa.org/join/mht/

A more dated (1989) example which doesn't cost anything to see or assess can be found at this link:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-01-04/entertainment/8902220824_1_typists-chickens-eggs

Another shorter version with "Mensa-style" questions and answers:
http://www.agincourtpractice.co.uk/resources/mensa.htm

Q. I get a real kick out of your loopy brother (Mike) who thinks he's a Confederate raider or something. On clicking at the entry link to his blog on your August 8 post I see he always tries to appear this homespun dude with this "My friends" stuff. Who's he trying to fool? He's not friends with anyone! You just have to read his crappy blogs to see how disturbed he is. Any take on if and when he might change his blog again to be more tolerant? Also, what is this guy's damage? Was he dropped on his head as a kid?, Murray T., Norman, Oklahoma

A. I do agree that his 'my friends' intros are a bit over played. He likes to portray himself as this down home, relaxed type of southern dude but his own words and hateful content betray him. He's a raging maniac underneath the soft soap veneer, calling people "apes" (mainly blacks), "libtards", "c*nts" or worse.  As for being dropped on his head, no. But maybe in one too many fights where he took as many blows to the head as he delivered. We know, from looking at the NFL football head injuries that have come to the fore (e.g. Junior Seau), that repeated blows can have deleterious effects on the brain. This can lead to erratic behavior.  As for changing again, I could care less if he does or doesn't. It's his choice to make, and he has to deal with who and what he is. As an aside, it's really goofy and misplaced how he often makes lame invocations of our dad, when dad detested everything about Mike's hateful blog when he was alive.

Q. You mentioned doing a blog post soon on JFK and how he challenged the national security state. When can we expect it? Desmond, Portland, OR

A. That post is still in the process of preparation, as I'm juggling that with completing a book, that's due to launch in about 4 weeks, maybe sooner. The title is 'Beyond Atheism, Beyond God'  (to be published by iUniverse) and will be my final entry in my atheist series, showing how a rational atheism can lead to a Materialist conception of Being. Meanwhile, I am also trying to re-organize a science fiction novel on the Kennedy assassination, entitled, The Lancer Expedition. If all goes well it should be out by Nov. 1st, but hopefully sooner!

Q. When can we expect more interviews with your delightful sister-in-law Krimhilde? (Aug. 12 post) She has me considering joining Eckankar. - Molly D., London, UK

A. The next interview will probably be when I see Krimhilde again, perhaps next Spring. Will keep readers posted!