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/
 

How The Mensa Bulletin Has Abdicated Its Responsiblities Re: Global Warming

                                                                              

It was understandably shocking to many of us some months ago on learning, from a note attached to a letter in the Mensa Bulletin by the editor, that global warming can no longer be a topic for discussion - either in the letters section or as an article.  (One single sentence mentioning global warming did sneak into the last (March)  issue, tied to the "cause of global warming" being the population tripling since 1900,  but this was in connection with an article entitled 'Medical Marvels and Moral Dilemmas' - not on global warming per se. The writer himself, a Mike Irrgang, made no reference at all to the connection of higher CO2 concentrations to more population.)

 This current Bulletin policy can probably be traced to frequently heated exchanges, mostly between those of us with a background in physics and even climate science, and a gaggle of noisy, irrepressible know nothings (who believed their Mensa level IQ alone justified their opinions). Much of this was covered in a blog post of mine from seven years ago ('How Can So Many Smart People Be So Dumb?')  e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-can-so-many-smart-people-be-so-dumb.html

As I noted in the post:

"Three months after The Mensa Bulletin published a letter of mine reinforcing the prevalent scientific view of global warming – that it was anthropogenic and continually exacerbated by increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a whole swatch of attack letters were published in the recent (June) issue. Not one supported me, and this from a society that claims it represents the top 2% of IQs (e.g. > 130 on Stanford-Binet). One person even affirmed that my letter showed Mensa to be just a “propaganda front” for global warming purveyors and so he was quitting! Now, how smart is that?

The others went off on multiple tangents, though there were at least two letters that were somewhat sensible and made cogent points, though many of these points had so many holes it was like trying to parse a message scribbled on Swiss cheese."

I've also specifically rebutted nonsense from other Mensans, including educator Marty Nemko,, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2008/04/ten-answers-for-marty-femko.html

As well as a clown named Evan J. Wright who actually pooh-poohed the idea that the oceans could absorb C02 without "turning into soda pop", see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/04/how-global-warming-deniers-get-better.html

Most of the opposing blabber I traced to the writers being victims of  Agnotology, which  is derived from the Greek 'agnosis' and hence the study of culturally constructed ignorance. This was exposed in research by Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor, who tagged it to the trend of skeptic science sown for political or economic ends - e.g. in imparting ignorance and faux skepticism. We now know almost all of this has been hatched in documents outed from the fossil fuel propaganda mills and exposed by the Union of Concerned Scientists, e.g.

www.ucsusa.org/decadesofdeception

This was even referenced by me in a reply letter to the Bulletin, before the "shut down" but which was never published. In the letter I pointed out that if Mensa truly represents the upper 2 percent of intelligence then it is incumbent on the Bulletin to embrace genuine science and not the pseudo-science of the hacks and purveyors of disinformation.

But clearly the Editor, not seeking to stir up any more heat, took the position (false as I will show) that there existed "two sides to the arguments" and he wasn't about to filter out the warming naysayers, OR give the valid respondents (including scientists) space to make the case.  By refusing to publish any letters from the latter, and in effect totally closing down the information flow via any discussion, he essentially abdicated responsibility and "punked out" in the parlance of some.

The other  problem? A slack, PR-governed media has fallen down on its job and often portrayed global warming as having "two sides". It does not, no more than the existence of the Holocaust has two sides. But in an “argument”/ "Crossfire" culture where polarization and passion naturally dominates reason, most people assume there are inevitably “two-sided” issues. 

As a corollary to this, the general false assumption follows that both sides "deserve hearings" and a balanced presentation is preferred over a “one-sided” one. The latter is always termed “biased”. This leads to the egregious media conviction that presenting "two sides" implies "Objectivity" - which is an abuse of the term.   Denying that the Holocaust occurred could never be "objective" just as denying anthropogenic global warming with its massive scientific evidence compiled over thirty years.

 In effect, there’s a colossal advantage to creating the misperception that a two-sided issue exists. For one, it confers credibility on a specious position that ordinarily would be dismissed at the outset. Thus, human global warming deniers – like Holocaust deniers – earn a gravitas, forum and respect (often via the media) they otherwise wouldn’t have.   Having achieved an essentially unearned credibility, the global warming deniers are at liberty to basically eschew evidence they can’t refute, minimize or spin the projected dire consequences into some ambiguous benefit, or exaggerate the uncertainties implicit in climatic science.

 They need only sit back and nitpick, or criticize the hard won original research without doing an ounce of creative labor on their own. This factors into their plan because they’re not out to create a counter-theory so much as induce enough doubt – via PR – to destroy the existing theory. Hence, all they need do is sit back and cast aspersions and sow seeds of doubt – and let the other side play interminable defense.

But my point is that a forum for the more intelligent in the society ought to be able to rise above this noise level, and given at least many of its members are climate specialists or know a lot more than other members, they ought to have a preponderant voice.

The Bulletin's ostrich act is especially disturbing given that climate scientists have now described February variously as featuring temperatures that were  "astronomical", "staggering" and "strange" (Denver Post, p. 13 A, Mar. 18).  February was the most above-normal month since meteorologists began keeping track in 1880, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In addition, the past three months have been the most above normal months on record  according to Jessica Blunden of the NOAA. Scientists from both NOAA and NASA have noted this departure from norms and warned the climate "may have moved into a new and hotter neighborhood".  This would likely be the cusp of the runaway Greenhouse effect.

For a so-called "high IQ society" to ignore this - as if it doesn't exist - is to act unconscionably, even if it invokes the usual excuse that "Mensa  supports no particular political or religious positions". Well, this is a scientific position, it isn't based on personal opinions. Now, with human life likely in the balance, how can a supposed society of high IQ people remain stone  silent on this critical issue? Only Mensa and its illustrious Bulletin editor, alas, will be able to answer this - but I doubt in any satisfactory way. Because IF you profess intelligence of any degree you ought to be able to recognize objective physical truth - especially when it's burning your ass off and drenching your cities with "thousand year events" from super-heated, moisture-laden atmosphere.

Hopefully, the Mensa Bulletin will rethink its position in the near future. At least Integra, the journal of Intertel, the top 1 percent IQ society, hasn't mutated into this "see no evil" nonsense.....yet.

Mensa: Is It Really Full of Vicious Boors?

A year ago I noted the horrific attacks on a fellow Mensan, Michelle, featured on the cover of a Mensa Bulletin Issue  (see graphic) with her tats in  full view. In the wake of the cover image, she was mercilessly pilloried- mainly by older Mensans and some of the remarks can be read here:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/12/older-mensans-ought-to-be-smarter-than.html


This again elicited the question of whether Mensans are just plain vicious boors or it it was an age thing. Some further clarity arrived with the essay 'Let It Go', by Ellen Voie, appearing in the Nov/Dec issue of the Bulletin, p. 12. Interestingly, the sub-header was: 'Civilizing Blunt Communication Among Mensans'.  Voie, while noting the dangers of stereotyping "because Mensa members have so little in common",  also observed:

"However, there is one thing I have noticed from this highly intelligent group of individuals. They are very blunt. I thought about using the word 'candid' or even 'frank' but blunt works better."

She then delivered a few examples, including:

- When one member or other was trying to deliver a Power Point presentation at a Mensa event and people immediately began pointing out typos, shouting "You misspelled a word!"

 - In the Bulletin Letters section, instead of disagreeing with a concept or idea, it is suggested that other writers are idiots (or morons)

-At other events when a person expresses some further interest in a topic already covered, or asks what is construed as an unnecessary question,  detractors call for a Mensa "re-test." This is taken to be the ultimate insult one Mensan can hurl at another.

My own battles against fellow Mensans (Evan and Jon Wright) were well documented in the Bulletin and also in letters back and forth where I flatly called the pair "high grade morons" after Evan J. Wright asserted that I was "writing nonsense" because I noted the much higher absorption of CO2 in the oceans. According to Wright: "That's preposterous! If the oceans absorbed carbon dioxide they'd all turn into carbonated liquid, or soda pop! Does anyone see that? NOOO!"

Jon Wright - proving the apple never falls far from the tree- then defended his pop calling me the "moron" and belching I needed a "re-test". Meanwhile, his pop went off again, in the Jan. 3rd, 2012 Wall Street Journal letters (understandable given the WSJ is firmly anti-global warming) babbling:

"Having studied this subject for about 50 years from a research engineer's viewpoint and having read hundreds of articles and scientific reports during this time, I must say that sunspots are probably a factor, more so than Earth's elliptical orbit..."

It was hard not to roll on the floor laughing at this bollocks, all in an effort to escape anthropogenic global warming.

Strangely, neither Wright could explain the increasing acidity of the oceans when pressed, though any scientifically literate citizen would grasp that the world's oceans have about 30% higher acidity as a result of the chemical reaction: H2O + CO2 -> H2CO3, in other words, the production of carbonic acid. Which shows that merely because one belongs to Mensa doesn't mean he or she knows diddly or can argue coherently.

Back to Voies' plea, she wrote - invoking the song 'Let it go' from the flick Frozen:

"The next time you disagree with another Mensan's opinion, don't challenge his or her character, just question the facts. If you see a typo on a slide don't be in a race to point it out. We know it's there and are trying to ignore it for the presenter's sake.  The next time you find yourself questioning someone's intelligence when they ask a question, let it go."

Well, how about if they claim in a Bulletin letter the oceans would "turn to soda pop" if CO2 was absorbed? Can I call them morons then?

Anyway, while her advice is understandable it is doubtful Mensans will suddenly turn into polite members of the Socratic Debate Society anytime soon. And we aren't all 'goodie two shoes' good guys merely because we belong to Mensa either. As Thomas de Shazo writes in the most recent issue of Intertel's * Integra:

"One reason we are not dedicated to benevolence with our heady resources is that no moral compass attaches to high IQ. We have our full share of petty thieves, Wall Street class criminals as well as Ted Bundy types. 'Evil' is as randomly linked with genius as with dunce."

Indeed, and boorishness and nasty language too, can attach to those of us in high IQ societies as well as any other organizations. Which leads to another deShazo observation:

"There is not much correlation between high IQ and consistent good sense. Every one of us strays off the reservation with a really stupid act once in a while."

Having said all that, let's be clear not all Mensans are vicious boors, even a majority. One of the most delightful evenings wifey and I spent was ten days ago, attending the local Mensa Holiday Party which also featured a "White Elephant Gift Exchange".  In that fun event members each bring a gift they no longer want, valued between $15 and $25 and put it in a pile then each randomly draws a number from a bowl. Number 1 goes first and selects a wrapped gift from the pile and must open it before the group. Number 2 can either do the same or grab the gift (if they like it) from Number 1. This goes through all the numbers until the last person, who can either pick the last gift or grab someone else's. Wifey and I each brought a book we'd already read, and no longer wanted, and we ended up with a bottle of Cabernet wine from another couple. (Actually I grabbed it first, then the guy took it back 15 numbers down, then after wifey's Bailey's was snatched, she used her late ticket to snatch the wine back- by which time no further exchanges of the item were allowed - two max.)

None of the 44 odd people misbehaved, insulted another (say because a gift they prized was grabbed) or delivered obnoxious jokes. We all had a great time, but also perhaps because the subjects of politics, religion or phony science never reared their ugly heads.

-----
* Intertel is the next IQ society up from Mensa, for which one must place in the top 1 percent of IQ test scores, as opposed to the top 2 percent.

Alzheimer's: A Mensa Bulletin Perspective - On Avoiding It, Recognizing It

For those of us over 65s, the specter of Alzheimer's disease stalks us as if from the shadows. - as we understand that after the age of 65 the incidence of the disease doubles every five years.  The most recent relative actually diagnosed with it was Janice's cousin Desmond - once a man of quick wit and endless curiosity, especially about astronomy and cosmic physics. In the photo image shown we'd just been discussing dark energy and he attended a lecture I gave that evening at the Harry Bayley Observatory. Of all the  30 or so attendees, he asked the most percipient questions. 

By the time we visited Barbados in May, 2010,  we were told Desmond was in a "home" - where he was being cared for. We went to see him, unable to believe a man of such intellect could be reduced to little more than a babbling baby - but it was true. The experience shocked us both and made us even more wary of the disease. Little lapses in memory somehow transmogrified into real fears of disease onset, not to mention other lapses - i.e. such as in a blog post two days ago putting "Frogs" in the header instead of "pigs".  Alzheimer's? Or just a transitory brain fart arising from overload?

Fortunately, a Mensa Bulletin article, 'Understanding Alzheimer's', by Edna R. Tynes (February, 2014, p. 18) sheds much needed light.  Perhaps the most important contribution is the recognition of the disease apart from normal aging.  The lapses in memory, in particular, are well -explained:

"Normal aging is what happens when your brain gets overloaded. It's not so much that your brain can't collect and store memories, it's the fact that the mechanism in the hippocampus that indexes your memories and decides where to store them gets overloaded. It's the overload of this index that slows down your ability to recall and use a particular memory - also known as 'senior moments'."

This makes eminent sense given people who've lived 60 or more years have millions of memories stored, far more than a high school or college grad. As each new experience unfolds, including learning, more and more 'blocks' of memory are added to the hippocampus' indexes.  One can in some ways think of it as a "register problem".  As registers become overloaded with gigabytes of information and past events they become ever more difficult to access. This is why seniors take longer at many different tasks, because even when they are thinking them through to answer questions -  they are going into the vast store of prior learning. This is also why, as the author observes, "the ability to learn new things and retain that knowledge tends to decrease with age."

This is one reason I blog, and do diverse posts on many different topics apart from my specialty areas of astrophysics, modern physics and advanced math. Writing a blog post on a topic in economics, or medical research, or politics forces one to become familiar with it by doing research, or reading specific articles. Also, having written a blog post on some topic, all I need to do is recall the gist of it or a keyword to immediately bring it up via Google. In that way I can keep the memory of what I wrote fresh in mind.

I am still able to do the same with most books. Although I may not be able to recall a specific issue, or what was discussed in a particular text, I am able to immediately find the book in my library and locate the page of interest.

There are other ways the author suggests for delaying or avoiding the disease:

-  Frequent use of puzzles or games, particularly strategy games (GO, Chess)

-  Reading, especially non-fiction (history, politics, economics, science)

- Socializing, especially in venues where the conversation is stimulating.

- Traveling and learning a new language (or keeping up with one you took in college)

- Taking classes in something new, either in a classroom setting or online - anything to exercise your mind.

- Eating more fruits and vegetables as part of a healthy diet

- Maintain low cholesterol and blood pressure

- Avoid Type 2 Diabetes

All of these are quite doable but clearly some more so than others. The point is that at all costs one want to keep one's mind active and sharp. Some may do it by working out calculus problems from one's college textbooks, while others may read and research historical topics, or venture into the realms of deep politics or quantum physics.

What about the warning signs of Alzheimer's? A number of them are listed in the article and which those who note them might wish to attend to:

1- Memory loss. Not senior moments, but forgetting recently learned information and major events. (I.e. you forgot that the U.S. was planning an attack on Syria last July-August)

2- Decreased Problem solving skills - watch out if you take longer to complete common tasks or have difficulty with math problems you once found easy.

3- Time and date confusion: difficulty understanding the passage of seasons, not knowing the year or why events don't happen immediately.

4- Difficulty with familiar tasks: Beware if you no longer remember the way to work, can't remember a problem protocol - or how to play Hearts.

5- Vision and spatial understanding: Difficulty judging distances, color contrasts or even reading.

6- Communication issues: Difficulty with joining or maintaining conversations - repeating the same points all the time - or expressing oneself. Including in expressing your ideas in writing.

7- Losing items: Everyone misplaces keys or pens on occasion but putting things in odd locations (e.g. the car keys in the fridge) is a red alarm. (Also accusing others of taking the lost items).

8- Abnormally bad judgment: Being frivolous with money, i.e. buying 150 Publishers Clearinghouse magazine subscriptions a year to win their 'sweepstakes', or 100 lotto tickets a day. Making unsafe decisions or lapsed grooming habits.

9- Withdrawal. Pulling away from family and friends is a warning sign, as well as foregoing hobbies and beloved activities.

10- Mood changes: Becoming paranoid or abnormally suspicious about others' behavior - or becoming angry,  depressed or anxious for no reason.

Of course, there is now a blood test to identify Alzheimer's with relatively high probability (AARP Bulletin , 'Would You Want to Know?', May, p. 20)  but with no clear means of effectively addressing the disease or treating it, what would be the point?  Craig Klugman, a bioethicist quoted in the article, observes:

"A positive result on a test like this could be devastating. It could change people's outlook on life, making them anxious, depressed and withdrawn. Suddenly, you find yourself living with this sense of doom that can effect every dimension of your life."


Image from Mensa Bulletin, February, p. 21.

Those who test positive could also suffer the added burden of feeling stigmatized or ashamed. You know you have this defect of the brain and now that you have this knowledge which eats away at your confidence, choices and words. As each new lapse, or faux pas occurs, the stigma is reinforced and the affected person becomes more withdrawn. Soon he identifies with the disease and it becomes his very manifestation. 

Nor is this empty speculation. A recent study cited in the AARP article (ibid.)  looked at the effect of telling people that they carry a genotype that puts them at high risk of developing Alzheimer's. Those who tested positively judged their memories more critically as well as every lapse. They also performed worse on memory tests than those not informed.

Get a blood test to identify Alzheimer's bio-makers ahead of time? Nope. Until viable treatment options exist there's no point in knowing.  But at least articles such as the one in the Mensa Bulletin make one more aware of the disease - recognizing warning signs without a blood test and how one might try to avoid becoming a victim by being pro-active.

Executive Function Deficit: Why Brains Make Bad Decisions

Executive Function Deficit (or EFD) is probably a brain dysfunction few have heard about. I confess I didn't either until encountering the article 'The EFD Gap"  in the August, 2014 Mensa Bulletin (pp. 22-25). According to author, Lisa Van Gemert:

"Executive function deficit is more than just being easily distracted by shiny thoughts of leaving random person items around like Ellery Queen. EF includes the ability to stop yourself from thinking or behaving in way undesired by you (and often the people around you), planning, organization of time and materials, and much more. In short, executive function is what allows people to problem solve in order to achieve a goal, including effectively making the myriad decisions involved in successful management of day to life."

One such decision entails a place to live so that often, say when we see or hear people wail that they've "lived in a 620 sq; foot dump the past 12 years" we wonder whether their EF decisions were sound.  Did they save money - say by eating at home instead of going out or getting take out - or just blow it? Did they keep a bank savings account or CD or another vehicle to save?   Did they look for best interest rates even in a down environment (thanks to the Fed)? Or just blow money on every kind of item, including DVDs, new cars etc.?  This is what executive decision making is all about: assigning goal priorities in a manner which achieves your most desired long term goals while forgoing the short term gratifications, desires.

According to Muriel Lezak, an emeritus professor of neuropsychology quoted in the article:

"The executive functions consist of those capacities that enable a person to successfully engage in independent, purposive, self-serving behavior."

She also argues that EF differ from general cognition, noting:

"Questions about executive functions ask how and whether a person goes about doing something e.g. Will you do it? And if so, how? Questions about cognitive functions are generally phrased in terms of what or how much, i.e. how much do you know?"

The author, Gelmert, does admit that "if there is a fad in neuropsychology, EF is it. Yet it would be a mistake to dismiss its impact because of faddishness."

Gelmert observes that executive function  runs along a continuum rather than a dichotomy, so there is no 'black and white'. It's not a case that your EF exists or doesn't. It is the level to which it exists and manifested in the quality of your decisions.  The downside (p. 24):

"Unfortunately, the nebulous nature of definition, diagnosis and treatment make EF problems harder to cope with for parents, practitioners, educators and the person with the issue."

Because of this ambiguity, discussions tend to focus on extreme manifestations of EF deficits, such as ADHD. According to Paul Beljan, a neuropsychologist and past President of the American Board of Pediatric Psychiatry, "just because something is commonly diagnosed doesn't mean it's exploding."

Indeed, but minus a common definition any specific diagnosis is problematic. For example, consider one facet of EF, processing speed - which "works at hundreds of milliseconds yet we're measuring it with a stop watch" - according to Dr. Beljan.  Effective evaluation of EF deficit then, must look at multiple factors: attention, inhibition, planning, adaptation, flexibility, speed, cognitive shift and sustained attention to a performance task..

Interestingly, EF deficit also has a genetic component. Twin studies disclose if one has it the other is likely to as well.  There is also an "evolutionary holdover" and those brain functions that served us 200,000 years ago have become obstacles to social cohesion now. Back then, if you didn't jump when a twig snapped you might get eaten by a saber tooth tiger. Also, if you didn't hoard food you'd starve.  As Beljan observes: (ibid.):

"Our lives are changing so fast that our brains can't keep up and this becomes profoundly obvious when someone really has a deficit. They're incredibly bright, but just can't achieve."

Where is EF housed? The observation above implies the "executive" prefrontal cortex, but as the author notes, that's "too simplistic". Other areas of the brain are involved as well. Beljan cites "working memory" which has a motor component, as not only using the prefrontal cortex but the basal ganglia with additional input from the cerebellum and the rest of the frontal lobe.

Beljan sums up deviations from proper EF functioning as a "disorder" and notes (p..25):

"Essentially what is at the core of this deficit is a failure of the brain to consolidate behavior into routines- procedural memory."

Given the multidimensionality of the problem and the fact there likely will be no pill for a "miracle cure" the most people can do - for themselves and their children - is work toward better EF outcomes. Some of the advice given in the article includes:

- Build think time into routines. If kids act before they think they can't process the activity all the way through. (A key is bearing in mind that kids have to cognate what adults find automatic.)

- There is no one right way, so don't become discouraged when you hear a solution that worked for some person but which fails in your situation.

- Use trial and error to find out what works, then live or die by that process. It's always detrimental to change up the routine.

- Don't be persuaded that an expensive organizing system will solve the problems.

- Spend time identifying all the steps of a process (e.g. such as a child getting ready for school, or a high school senior getting ready for college admission). Awareness of the process helps to force a level of consciousness.

- Higher quality decisions and executive functioning must constantly be worked on. It's like going to the gym and exercising the same muscle sets.

Mensa Bulletin Looks At The Two Sides of Fracking - What Should You Believe?

The latest issue of the Mensa Bulletin featured two interesting back to back articles on fracking. The first, 'Energy and Economic Freedom' by Leonard Gaston, sang the praises of fracking for both natural gas and shale oil (kerogen) and how it is helping to make us energy independent. The second, 'Selling Our Health and Homes', by Al Bell, examined how fracking is undermining not only our environment - devastating water sources and ecological systems - but also our own health by extension.


 According to Gaston, in his frack- praising piece (p. 20):

"The Independent Energy Agency indicated in its 2012 world energy outlook, that by 2018 North America will provide 40 percent of new supplies  through the development of tight oil and oil sands and that the expected steep rise in U.S. shale oil reserves will change the global balance of power between existing producers and new producers."

 Note that "tight" oil means that extracted at or near the "breakeven point", i.e. the energy input to extract it is nearly equal to the energy that will be delivered by it. In most instances of kerogen fracking, I am putting in about 1.1 barrels of high EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) light crude oil, to get about 1 barrel back.  This is based on the additional energy needed to clean up nasty fracking waste pits, spills, leaks and other collateral damage. And btw,  this is heavy, volatile, 'skank'' oil of the type that has recently been traced to explosions in rail way storage cars - in Canada and in the U.S.

From there, Gaston goes on to sing even more praises and presses the case for pie-eyed optimism, quoting the head of British Petroleum (surely a font of insight), stating that the rise in U.S. oil production -  largely due to shale oil - would make the United States "completely independent of imported oil, likely by 2030."

Maybe, but what condition will the planet be in by then- with over ten million fracking wells and more added all the time? Is it really worth all that extra energy and to boast of "energy independence" to live in a ravaged world where you can barely breathe and looking across the landscape you see only barren, shredded terrain, with barely any water left to drink (all poisoned by methane and other effluent)? What kind of a parent would even want to bring a kid into such a world?

These questions are left to Al Bell to answer, but even before he does, Robert Heinberg ('Snake Oil: How Fracking's False Promise Imperils Our Future'  ) has butchered the whole Pollyannish nonsense that fracked oil and natural gas are our energy saviors - oh, and will be kind to the environment.

As Heinberg observes, while it may cost less to extract a cubic foot of natural gas or a gallon of oil shale today, it will cost much more in just five years and even more in ten - such that one would have to spend as much or more to get the energy as the benefit it delivers. Heinberg summons a point that most of the snake oil salesman humping fracking won't tell you, that it costs energy to get energy. And if you are a nation that resorts to employing 15 to 1 EROEI energy to extract  5 to 1 EROEI  oil shale energy.....well, can we say 'stupid'?

As Heinberg puts it (p. 116):

"No evidence suggests that the technology of fracking has actually raised the EROEI for natural gas production. It temporarily lowered prices but only by glutting the market."

Heinberg's book is essentially a tour-de-force exposing the false promise of fracking with hard statistics and basic energy principles.  Regarding the much ballyhooed "shale oil" or kerogen, Heinberg is blunt (ibid.):

"Kerogen is not oil. It is better thought of as an oil precursor that was insufficiently cooked by geologic processes. If we want to turn it into oil, we have to finish the process nature started: that involves heating the kerogen to a high temperature for a long time. And that in turn takes energy- lots of it, whether supplied by hydroelectricity, nuclear power plants, natural gas, or the kerogen itself. Therefore the EROEI in processing oil shale is bound to be pitifully low. According to the best study to date, by Cutler Cleveland and Peter O'Connor, the EROEI for oil shale production would be about 2:1. That tells us that oil from kerogen will be far more expensive than regular crude oil."

Many Mensans, I think, would not have read any of this before seeing Bell's account, and hence may be skeptical (especially since way too many Mensans buy into the libertarian nonsense.)  I will be looking to see what sort of responses come in over the next few months,

Bell's bona fides and familiarity with oil and natural gas came from his father who had been president of the Southern Gas Association and a member of the American Gas Association. No surprise he had largely been into the "drill, baby, drill" meme.  His education on the deleterious effects of natural gas fracking, however, came by virtue of seeing Josh Fox's Gasland and Gasland II documentaries, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/07/gasland-ii-too-intense-for-wifey-to.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/07/gasland-ii-fracking-is-worse-than-you.html

As Bell observes (p. 22):

"My views have now been completely reversed by two documentaries, Gasland and Gasland II, and by the all out and totally unscrupulous efforts by the gas industry to discredit the information provided by those two films.  I have little love for environmentalists, but when they are right we must pay attention and this is such a case."

He goes on to elaborate on the pro-frack propaganda, leading to too many brainwashed citizens:

"Gas industry ads blanketing television now are intended to show you how safe this process is and how we all benefit from it. The ads show how this fracked shale is separated by thousands of feet of rock from the aquifers high above and how steel casings and cement liners prevent any gas escaping into the aquifer."

He goes on to show what bollocks this is by citing the gas industry's own stats that disclose 5 percent of cement liners fail immediately, and more fail progressively with time.  In Gasland II, for example, Josh Fox shows an actual document from Schlumberger, revealing that cement failure occurs at alarming rates - as depicted in one of their graphs showing 'fraction of wells affected by cement failure' vs. the well age in years'.  The document showed a failure fraction of 40 percent after only 12 years, and a failure fraction of 50 percent after 30 years.  That means if 1.5 million new wells are added in the US of A, as projected, 750,000 will leak after thirty years. If 180,000 are added to PA, that means 90,000 will leak after 30 years.

So the natural gas and other ads pumping "safety" are all BS.

The result of all the leaks, as Bell notes (p. 23): "The result is tap water that contains methane, other gases and chemicals" (Like benzene).  He also shoots down the idiocy, pushed e.g. by Niall Ferguson, that the quality of air is unaffected. He writes (ibid.):

"Special FLIR cameras have captured scenes of massive amounts of methane escaping from the drilling sites, polluting the air."

As here in Colorado, Bell has noted "frequent fogs of brown gas escaping from wells, blanketing homes and herds".  Such instances have caused gas companies to erect enormous walls, some fifty feet high and blocks long, in some Denver metro communities - to try and prevent the noise and effluent from affecting communities excessively.  One of them near Denver is shown below:


But the negative health impacts can't be cordoned off so easily - especially as the frackers can extend their drilling underneath the walls, even into neighboring properties.  Bell observes (ibid.):

"You may now be eating meat from cattle raised in this environment. Much of our country is being destroyed by fracking. Just the sight of dead wildlife, poisoned streams, sick children and burning wells  - and government mendacity and collusion will disgust you."

Indeed! And lo and behold there on CBS Early Show this a.m. was the little shyster, Lloyd Blankfein - of Goldman Sachs - which made out like bandidos in the aftermath of the '08 financial meltdown ( by making credit default bets against good lenders). Here he was proclaiming what a "blessing" it is to now have energy independence in the near future. As the little rat said:

"Here we had all taken it for granted that we'd have to import energy from the most troubled places in the world. Now, all of a sudden, we have a completely different view forward.  And if you want to think how that will change the world going forward - just think of how the world might have been different if we didn't have the energy situation we had. Going forward, we have a terrific situation and we should recognize it. It's a gift and it has to be picked up."

Which makes me wonder what turnip truck this little prick fell off of. For one thing, his reference to what "might have been" is totally disingenuous. What is he saying? That if we'd only started to plumb natural gas and shale oil sources 40 years ago we'd have avoided becoming embroiled in Middle East geopolitics? Or the Arab Oil Embargo? Hello! It was precisely that HIGH EROEI light sweet crude that enabled everything that advanced the nation - from powerful machines leading to efficient manufacturing, to jet aircraft in modern aviation (and mass transport via such) to air conditioning, and  petroleum byproducts (including fertilizers for growing crops). It was that HIGH quality oil, not degraded kerogen, that enabled it,  you doofus! Hence, without that Arabian  (and domestic) light sweet crude, our economic growth up until the 1970s or so never would have been what it was!

As for shale oil fracking being a "gift", tell that to the kids dealing with sores and rashes all over their bodies, and unable to breathe without coughing half the time.

Blankfein also pointed to the creation of "2 million new jobs"  but as Al Bell observes, these are mainly in Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and North Dakota where the frack craze has brought in drillers by the tens of thousands, to try and grab their brass ring.  The result? "Motels in Texas and Louisiana are doubling all their prices" and roads are clogged with many more thousands that the towns were not developed to accommodate. Meanwhile, pollution and noise reigns supreme.

Meanwhile, the claim that  these new fossil fuel "plays" are resulting in a "5 percent reduction in greenhouse gases" is just plain balderdash. In fact, greenhouse gases- including methane and CO2 -are now increasing at an ever more dangerous level (See 'The Years of Living Dangerously' which can also be viewed online.)

At the end of his PR appearance, Blankfein claimed that:

"Everybody is pro-environment and everybody is pro-energy. It's not a question of somebody being right and somebody being wrong".

But in Al Bell's essay, it is! Key among the issues is the loss of water supplies, especially, since each fracked well consumes 3-5 million gallons of fresh water  So that question, not to be facetious, becomes:

"Would you rather have clean water to drink and use, OR energy?"

This puts the issue in a more objective form than Blankfein's.   Since no one can live without water, and we can live with less energy (though yes, it might be hard to surrender all those smart phones and notebooks) it is a no -brainer. "Balancing" the two seems to be a fool's errand, because as it is,  the gas industry isn't interested in being balanced. They will not, for example, allow communities here in Colorado to establish limits to fracking. (It has been left to Jared Polis to table such a referendum for vote in November  - to enable all CO communities to decide for themselves if they want fracking or not).

Given the lack of balance, the environment and human health must trump the energy mandate. However, don't look for industry, government or Wall Street to go along with anything citizens want.  On this score, Bell is perhaps correct when he ends his piece with:

"If we do not stop plans to frack (in the CA Central Valley, where most of the nation's produce is grown) we will be totally fracked!"

Mensan Brain Workouts - To Help Couch Potatoes Too!

Mensans, as members of one of the high IQ groups, have a vested interest in preserving their brain power.....not letting it go to seed. Some of us may do this by working on difficult math problems, or playing computer chess or GO, while others employ other forms of brain gymnastics. In the recent Mensa Bulletin (January) a number of members submitted their own recommendations, the activities they do to keep their "most important muscle" from getting atrophied.

Here are some of the more realistic choices which blog readers can also do:


Barbara Pixley:

The best way to keep your mind sharp is to use it! One of the most rewarding ways to do this is to volunteer. I've been a docent at various venues for more than 40 years - at museums and parks.  Not only does the acquisition of new information keep those synapses "synapsing" but sharing it with others is a vital part of the experience as well.


Kent Perkins:

I number ten items and give myself  a minute to memorize the list, and then I let my wife challenge me to recall all the items in a random order. This not only keeps my mind sharp, it keeps me from having to do anything constructive.


G.E. Nordell:

Crossword puzzles. I do them because I like them, but there is some evidence that suggest regular crossword puzzle activity prevents Alzheimers.

Chester Micek:

I wanted to do something to keep sharp so I decided to develop my foreign language skills. Soon, I was studying Spanish while driving in traffic and learning German while using a  stationary bike. I was totally pleased. I had found an intelligent way to enhance an old talent while escaping radio and TV.


Ford Thanheiser

I use my slide rule for doing multiplication and division.


Douglas Stidham:

One thing that really stimulate me is to grab something difficult I do not understand. For example, trying to wrap my mind around quantum physics and learn it well enough to explain it to others - that's learning twice. At age 65, the math and physics keeps me sharp!


Richard Gribbins

I work on financial problems and prospects.


Dr.H. Stanley Jones:

In the evening I enjoy playing a few computer games of hearts and solitaire. I feel this is helping to keep my mind sharp because the computer makes no mistakes and I cannot violate any rule without being challenged.


Chelsea Chester:

I talk to strangers often but avoid small talk or social scripts so I can watch how they adjust to the interaction. Some people get mad or confused and give up, but most people try their best. Everyone in the world knows something I don't and I want to skip straight to that part - without al the other boring stuff.



And Now Some Mensa Wordplay From the Same Issue:

Ambidextrose: The ability to eat sugar equally well with either hand.

Anheuser's Disease: Memory loss caused by excessive drinking.

 Catso: A very fat cat.

Democrazy: A form of government of the fools, by the fools and for the fools.

Hyperbowly: The type of hype generated around the SupreBowl.

Pressert: A Sweet treat before a meal.

Serendopity: When you do something stupid that turns out surprisingly well.

Surrealtor: An unscrupulous agent who tries to sell clients castles in the air.


Mental exercise:

Try to think up a few of your own "snappy snigglets" to create new definitions along the lines of the examples shown. The best ones - submitted via comment- will be published in a future blog post.

Older Mensans Ought to Be Smarter than to Pick On A Millennial With Tats!

"Michelle" - posing for the cover of Mensa Bulletin in Dec. 2004. Older fuddy-duddie Ms piled on in the wake.

I joined Mensa 20 years ago in order to try to find a forum and venue predicated on greater open-mindedness, and with people prepared to discuss issues based on evidence as opposed to emotion.  What I often found, in the course of sundry debates-exchanges, were people often no more informed than the "normals" or  the "98 percent".  Sure, they had the higher IQs (you only qualify if you place in the upper 2% of the population) but that alone doesn't ensure being able to use logic, or refraining from attacks on a fellow member's appearance.

One of the most bludgeoning wake up calls transpired after a Millennial, "Michelle", appeared on the cover of issue No. 480 back in 2004. Michelle (see image) evinced the non-conformist Millennial who is attractive but also opts for body piercings and tats.  The photo was intended to focus on Generations in Mensa, and how well they got along with each other. Well, not so much based on the flack that followed in droves of hateful, stupid and spiteful letters to the Bulletin. Many of these were published in the subsequent issue under the header 'About That Cover Photo'.  The lead in paragraph to the letters observed:

"Although the volume of letters complaining about the cover and our model, Michelle, still runs a distant second to those incensed over a small child kissing a puppy (February, 2004), what we lacked in quantity this time we made up for in vehemence and vitriol."

 Some examples:

"I suppose your cover girl picture of Michelle shocked many of us when we pulled out the Nov-Dec Mensa Bulletin from our mailboxes. But isn't that what you intended? Hey! For the first time in 25 years of membership I simply tore off and trashed the cover.....

It is sad when an otherwise pretty woman should have to mutilate herself in order to draw attention. 'Smart' or not it shows a self-demeaning personality who desperately needs psychiatric help.

Also, there are no 'generational differences! Past generations simply visited these people in freak shows!"  - C.B.Huesing  Ft. Wayne, IN


"What could have possibly gone through the heads of whoever put the picture of the mutilated trollop on the cover of Mensa Magazine No. 480?  Someone may think that garbage is attractive - but those rings are for controlling pigs, which she certainly is. And her other piercings may be cute to bikers and drug abusers as well as the completely ugly tattoos which will keep her out of the workplace.

It is incredible that Mensa would think this is acceptable in any way. It is barbaric and not conducive to recruiting people like my daughter who is 16 and trying to decide between Harvard, Davidson and Williams ...She would be repulsed if I showed her this magazine, so I will trash it immediately."

-T.R. Cook III, D.M.D., M.D.  (No location given)


"This is the ugliest cover I have ever seen on a Mensa Bulletin. Does this individual actually represent Mensa youth? Certainly, she and the cover are proof that there is no positive correlation between intelligence and judgment."  S.D. Higgins - Albuquerque, NM


"I am appalled by your cover selection for the Nov.-Dec Mensa Bulletin. By placing the photo of a misguided woman who has deliberately disfigured herself her face and body and having called it 'Generations in Mensa', you have invited disgust on my part. The ultimate offense was in your reference to this as 'body art'.

If you persist in this manner of publishing I will feel compelled to request that my membership in Mensa be severed." - 'Butch' Bialke, Park Rapids, MN


"The Mensa Bulletin has reached new levels of propriety and journalism. First, it was the article several issues ago about the slut Asia Carrera. She may be Mensan but a slut nonetheless.  Now, the current issue features a freak on the cover.

Who will be next? Osama bin Laden? At this rate you'll be up for a Pulitzer Prize for sure!"

- J.P. Robinson (No location given)


"With reference to the Mensa Bulletin of Nov-Dec, 2004, when did Mensa get taken over by Satan?

With reference to the cover, please refer to Leviticus 19:28 and to Revelation 21:8 and the term 'abominable' which tells us what is to become of those who do such things. There are the words of Jesus Christ as God who made everything and established all the commandments, statutes and judgments stated in the Bible (John 1:1-4 and Hebrews, 1)"  - Harold J. Farrell, Hastings, Neb.


"How sad that a beautiful, intelligent  young woman feels it necessary to disfigure herself with those really bad illustrations on her skin. Even more sad is the appearance of her image on the cover of issue No. 480, the magazine for the members of American Mensa."- Trudy Loper


---
Well, after reading through all this flapdoodle, I was reminded of the old saying: "better to remain quiet and be suspected of being a fool, than to open one's mouth and confirm it".  Especially the character who claims to be an M.D. and calls Michelle a 'mutilated trollop' and the other nominal Mensan who cites an ancient book once used to stone women and homosexuals to death.

But Michelle got her say in the January issue (No. 481):

"I have to admit I was a bit surprised (perhaps naïve) and dismayed to hear that my appearance on the cover of the November/December issue of the Bulletin caused such an uproar. I was a bit puzzle by this reaction, particularly from a group that, by definition, is unusual. Mensans all at least two standard deviations above the mean, making us all patently unusual.

Human nature dictates that people form themselves into groups consisting of "us" and "them".  This division can be made along a multitude of lines: geography, religion, race, gender. I suspect many people are chafing inside at the self-imposed, yet uncomfortable, social prison that necessitates the denial of their true selves. It bothers me that intelligent people so easily fall into the grips of such an automatic, yet unfortunately common, social phenomenon.

TO those who object to my appearance: the only really important difference between us is that I got tired of pretending to be 'normal'. Now I simply wear my weirdness on the outside, and it has been quite liberating. It has also added the advantage of separating the 'cream of the crop' when dealing with people, or the less common but truly worthwhile effect of opening one's mind.

If my mere image can challenge assumptions and group boundaries, and just one person resists the temptation to fall into the grips of the human brain's unfortunate categorization process, then I have dropped my pebble in the pond. When one boundary becomes fuzzy, perhaps others will as well- such as those relating to gender, sexual orientation, culture or any other arbitrary human division that exists.

Those who reacted negatively- I implore you to take a moment to look inside yourself and ask why my image causes you such distress. Is it because your perception has been challenged? Is it because you can't reconcile the dichotomy of an intelligent person who is also different? This is not a criticism, it is in fact, a gift.  If you confront these feelings it may allow you to grow. I am a picture on a piece of paper to you, yet be assured that somewhere out here, that image correlates with a living, breathing human being.

If you took the time to know me, it might actually threaten your world view...yes- but what is life without challenge? Growth rarely occurs in the absence of conflict. I can't claim much importance, I am just one person in a sea of many. But what I represent - change- should give you a cause to look inward and determine why a mere image can fill you with such venom.

We are all different. Many of us have felt alienated and as if we don't quite belong anywhere. I have been blessed with the wonderful yet sometimes difficult inability to pretend to be anything aside from what I really am. Please respect that."

-----

Quite a well written response. In regard to why such venom was displayed in reaction to Michelle's image, I am reminded of an experiment described by Dacher Keltner in his book, 'Born to Be Good'.    He was interested in exploring the arousal of what he called "gut morality" in an Ethics class. He surmised most people simply reacted at "gut" level before their neocortex could process actual moral transgression and distinguish it from idiosyncrasy - even foul idiosyncrasy.  To that end, he asked students to morally rate a scenario in which a man goes to purchase a chicken from the grocery each week, then has sexual relations with it.

After most of the class reacting emotionally and screaming "Pervert!" and condemning the act as most foul (not fowl), Keltner led them through the act again and more slowly, engaging their higher brain centers instead of the limbic ones.  By the end of the period they backed off, dismissed the guy's penchant for  store chickens as a foible and agreed no law or moral edict was violated so long as the practice was confined to his own domicile, preferably with the curtains drawn. Oh, ...and he should not invite any guests for chicken dinners!

I'd submit that the reaction to Michelle's tats and piercings equates to a similar gut reaction, and the assorted elder Mensans who fired back irate replies didn't let their gut -stoked neurons cool down first.  Had they waited a week or so and processed their thoughts more carefully, they'd likely have backed off ...Maybe. Who knows?


In the end, what the episode disclosed is that enormous divisions exist even inside Mensa, oh, and inside Intertel too,

Most of these we may never be able to surmount, as they relate to religious differences, political divisions, and economics ....but I hope to whatever higher order power may exist we get over the negative reaction to appearances....especially among the most intelligent citizens.

Else ...what the hell will we do when these guys below show up from Tau Ceti? If people can't handle Michellle's piercings and tats how are they going to handle communicating and interacting with ET?

Why So Many Past Aptitude Tests Are No Longer Accepted by Mensa

Well, not only by Mensa, but other high I.Q. societies, as well, including Intertel and the Poetic Genius Society. The sad bottom line fact for most wannabe Mensans (and Ilians, etc.) is that if they wish to join these societies today they had better have taken the SAT, GRE, PSAT, ACT tests before they became inapplicable. If their past test evidence doesn't make the cut then they will have to sit the official Mensa test in order to qualify.

The question of no longer accepting the SAT actually was answered at some length by Abby F.Salny (Ed. D.) in the March, 1994 issue of the Mensa Bulletin (p. 9) in response to a reader's question. The letter writer asked:

"Please tell me why Mensa will not accept the new SAT results as evidence for admission to Mensa. Is there some new aspect of the SAT test that makes it invalid for Mensa use?"

Dr. Salny responded:

"Many Mensans have asked why we do not accept the 'new' SAT scores or the 'new' MCAT scores. This is not only an explanation but a possible philosophical explanation of the changes in the test.

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 short, any test that we have rejected, or that we will reject in the future, has changed content from IQ or equivalent to content mastery. Our Constitution mandates this and we are trying to follow our Constitution."

This means that now even the GRE (since Oct., 2001) cannot be considered a true aptitude test and a valid basis for evidence to qualify for Mensa membership. The American Mensa, Ltd. website makes it clear what past tests are still accepted as evidence for qualifying and which are now content -dominated so no longer are. These include:

ACT Composite	prior to 9/89  (29)	29
	effective 9/89 ( N/A)	N/A

GMAT (Percentile rank of verbal + quantitative)** (95)

95

GRE	prior to 5/94 (V+ Q = 1250)	1250
	scored from 5/94 to 9/01 (math + verbal + analytic = 1875)	1875
	effective 10/01 (N/A)	N/A

Henmon-Nelson   (132)

132

LSAT***	prior to 1982 (662)	662
	1982 through 5/91 (39)	39
	effective 6/91 (163)	163

Miller Analogies Test (MAT)	prior to 10/04 (raw score 66)	66
	scored after 10/04 (total group percentile score 98)	98

PSAT (taken in junior year)	prior to 5/93 (180)	180
	effective 5/93 (N/A)	N/A

PSAT (taken in senior year)	prior to 5/93 (195)	195
	effective 5/93 (N/A)	N/A

SAT or CEEB	scored prior to 9/30/74 (1300)	1300
	scored from 9/30/74 - 1/31/94 (1250)	1250
	scored after 1/31/94 (N/A)	N/A

So, if you have SATs from 1974 through 1/31/94 you can qualify if your Verbal-Math total is 1250 (if before 1974, it needs to be 1300). If you are using the GRE (Graduate Record exam)  prior to May, 1994, the total needs to be 1250. If after that date but before 10/01 then the verbal, quantitative and analytic total must come to 1875. After 10/01 it's no go, you will either have to bring up an earlier SAT test, or take the Mensa test.

The point is that prospective candidates can't blame Mensa or the other organizations which are just following their own prescribed rules. If they must blame anyone it's the ETS (Educational Testing Service) or other test manufacturers. But before you do, be mindful they are not beholden to providing any IQ equivalent aptitude tests, but rather  to satisfying the demands of colleges own evolving admission standards and requirements. The point is that the priorities of universities and colleges need in no way conform with those of Mensa, Intertel et al.

Oh, one other thing, you can't submit "blended" scores, i.e. from multiple test sittings, nor can you submit a "re-sit" score, e.g. for SATs. For those who wish to take the Mensa test (if no prior evidence test is allowable) you can obtain a practice test from American Mensa.  For those who are curious as to how their prior SAT or GRE scores translate into I.Q. check out: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/greiq.aspx



Side note: It's interesting that the yen for content mastery has even invaded previous military aptitude tests, i.e.

Army GCT****	prior to 10/80 (136)	136
	effective 10/80 (N/A)	N/A

Navy GCT****	prior to 10/80 (68)	68
	effective 10/80  (N/A)	N/A