Dear estimable gentle-person,
I humbly invite you to stop by our very own cabinet of curiosities on the very subject pertinent to your expressed interests.
Sincerely yours in production,
Comrade fUNRULY
cc: @albill
4 Likes
Thatâs an interesting comparison that Iâd not yet come across. Letâs explore this.
Both are advocates for Charles Murray and his overconfidence in a science that has yet to produce any scientific laws.
Also notable that Mensa has been around for some 66 years, and doesnât seem to have any claims-to-fame (at least none that are search-engine-optimized, but hell those big brains are changing the world so Iâm sure SEO is trivial for them to do).
2 Likes
Does it have any notable claims-to-infamy? Iâm honestly curious. Not knowing anything about them other than that they were a society of smarty-pantses, I figured Iâd join Mensa about, oh, ten years ago or so. (I was in a long dry spell between girlfriends, had lost touch with many of my old San Diego friends, and was lonely and needed a fresh crop of people to socialize with, so I figured what the hell.) My SAT score from 1987 was high enough to qualify me, so I sent it in along with my application sheet and fee. Couple weeks later they wrote me back, thanking me for my interest and application, and politely asking me to please send in my qualifying documentation. Well, Iâd sent that reprint of my SAT results in the very same envelope, and I couldnât help envisioning it stuck to the shoe of the very person who was asking for it, so I figured maybe they werenât all that smart in the first place, so I declined to pursue the matter.
Did I maybe dodge a bullet? Or would Ford Prefect label them Mostly Harmless?
7 Likes
EXACTLY.
Theyâve neither taken over the world, Pinky, nor have they made it a demonstrably better place. I would welcome such citations that demonstrate any societal impact.
edit: also, I think Scientology has a better membership list.
1 Like
The brochure I read at the time (or maybe it was a webpage, canât remember) seemed to insist it was largely a social organization, completely apolitical, and not out to re-engineer the world. Maybe itâs just so people can discuss quantum mechanics during their lawn bowling tournaments.
But I am usually unsuspicious to a fault. Maybe they are up to something, and just havenât been able to get it together yet.
1 Like
Heh. I forgot to mention that Donald Petersen would show up there. The other one.
Personally I like Isaac Asimov and Buckminster Fuller more than a bunch of neurotic Hollywood types.
1 Like
From the wiki:
Mensaâs constitution lists three purposes: âto identify and to foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity; to encourage research into the nature, characteristics, and uses of intelligence; and to provide a stimulating intellectual and social environment for its membersâ.
One may argue that #1 and #3 are âsocial,â but #2 is definitely not. There have been 2 or 3 revisions to most intelligence tests since the time of Mensaâs founding, and Iâm not aware that theyâve been a contributor to any of those evolutions.
Also, of course, Sir Cyril Burt.
1 Like
I suspect that it is most attractive to people who are smart but feel like they have too little to show for it. If you are highly successful, then you probably have other ways to find intelligent people and become recognized as one of them.
My first personal exposure to Mensa was my high school chemistry teacher who explained to us how they turn all formula-fed babies into vanilla addicts and thus life-long slaves to the junk food industry.
1 Like
Far as I can tell, yeah, it seems to be useful as a social network, if anyone uses it at all. The only other thing I can think of is that itâs a cattier herd of cats than even our beloved BBS here, so they canât organize anything more world-changing than a Sunday brunch or 3D Chess tournament.
But as for Burt, was he wrong or just a bad researcher? That Earl Hunt guy thinks he may have been on to something. The wiki article is pretty vague. Personally, Iâve never been too terribly sold on the idea of heritable intelligence.
1 Like
Aha! That explains my own attraction to it rather well.
ETA: I vaguely remember Mensa held an occasional seminar about finances and monetary strategies entitled something like âIf Iâm So Smart, Why Arenât I Rich?â
2 Likes
Why stop at the top 2%, when you can be as exclusive as the top 0.000000000001%? Stephen Hawking was right - people who boast about their IQ are losers.
1 Like
âŚcue epilogueâŚ
Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean Peopleâs Front?
Reg: Fuck off! âJudean Peopleâs Frontâ. Weâre the Peopleâs Front of Judea! âJudean Peopleâs Frontâ.
Francis: Wankers.
7 Likes
Well, phooey. That certainly doesnât help settle the issue. Oh, well. Thanks anyway!
1 Like
This is one of the more confused ramblings Iâve read. The piece starts out with clear contradictions.
âTheyâre comfortable with progressive terminologyâ
"They seek to roll back âpolitical correctnessâ
Huh? They accept progressive terminology, yet reject political correctness, which is insistence upon progressive terminology. How does this make any sense?
âRedpillers define themselves as opponents to progressives.â
âTheyâve yet to assume a formal nameâ
Again, huh? They donât identity under a common name or banner, yet refer to themselves as red-pillers? Isnât that a name?
âWhile these so-called âracial realistâ views arenât mainstream in science, they are common in the Redpill universe, especially its most militant and regressive regions, such as the Neoreaction movement.â
âThankfully, Neoreaction isnât particularly large or influential. It is mostly confined to a handful of bloggersâ
âthis fringe of the Redpill Rightâ
These ideologies are âcommonâ in Redpill circles. Luckily, itâs just a âhandful of bloggersâ who hold them and theyâre âfringeâ in Redpill.
Youâre all over the place.
Then some bare assertions that simply donât square with experience.
âThis takes active forms, such as the conclusion any woman or person of color who outperforms a Redpiller must have cheated to do so, either with sexual favors or affirmative action.â
The exact opposite is true. Redpillers gleefully use minorities who have succeeded as examples of why affirmative action is not needed. How many times have you heard the argument - which progressives like yourself love to ridicule - that our black President is indicative of a post-racial society? And then there are all the successful conservative minority businessmen, politicials, and economists redpillers loudly celebrate: Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Allen West, Herman Cain, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, and so on. These individuals are used to prove the game is not rigged as an argument against progressive interventionism, directly counter to your narrative.
Then some outright lies, like:
âThe get-rich-quick psychology doesnât just apply to money: so-called âpick-up artistsâ such as Daryush âRoosh Vâ Valizadeh or Matt Forney offer how-to schemes to win the âgameâ of sexual conquest, although that advice often amounts to emotional abuse or coercion.â
Few if any pick-up artists claim pick-up artistry is âquick.â On the contrary, they are very up-front and insistent that it takes painful amounts of learning and practice for success. They view themselves as masters of a difficult-to-learn social art (an art they can painstakingly teach you for a fee or your continued leadership).
Nor does the link you provide advocate for âcoercion,â or ârapeâ as you and that author erroneously claim. While distasteful, itâs quite explicit about the fact that it is not an endorsement of rape, using the authorâs consensual sex from a past relationship as the main example of the article.
The rest is really just so much guilt by association. Some redpillers buy bitcoins, therefore theyâre all scammers and scammees. Some redpillers are racists, therefore they all are. The same mode of argument you howl about when applied to the many distasteful fringes within liberal and progressive thought since they donât represent the âmainstream.â
Poor reasoning, untruths, messy thinking. Clean it up, Jay.
Hey, that guy bought a crappy 80s Jag too!
3 Likes
Yep!
with no subsequent return of investment.
Boy, do I know the feeling.
1 Like
Randian philosophy is staunchly opposed to authoritarianism and monarchist systems. Itâs extremist meritocracy and borderline anarchocapitalism. I suppose one could argue this would inevitably result in an aristocracy, but it would be strictly financial - not political - in nature and, at least according to Objectivist theory, they would have earned their place by producing value.
Iâm pretty well versed in redpill philosophies and Iâve been around the Randosphere. Iâve never once seen somebody advocating monarchy. Iâm sure they exist, but they are extreme outliers and rejected by the vast majority of redpillers.
Sorry, but you are right. Given the current data, itâs certainly a historical rabbit-hole.
Still, not generating sympathy for IQ-essentialism, Mensa, or Burt.
1 Like
The term is âprogressive.â You are a progressive.
