posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:45 AM
When I took my Mensa test - back in 1982 - I remember sitting in a classroom on a Saturday morning, with a couple dozen others, and being told to get
a p*ss break in now or forever hold it (not forever, but for the next 6 hours). Then we were handed the first of 12 1/2 hour tests, which were each
focused on different aspects of general aptitude and areas of mental expenditure. The aptitude tests were to measure the person's intellectual
curiosity, which is an indicator of the person's capacity, since the fascile mind will seek information (generally) and when tossed in with the
traditional IQ tests (which measure a person's capacity to figure out bias-free challenges, such as abstract design associations and pattern
recognition) help refine the determination process.
We received 12 test, one after another, with no breaks whatsoever. No calculators and no excuses. When it was done, the whole room erupted in a
blizzard of chatter, as if we'd all known each other forever. It was quite an experience. I've read that Mensa doesn't test like that anymore.
After that test, I felt that I'd really been tested, and whatever it revealed was probably as close to accurate as anything was going to get.
I don't agree that a person's IQ can't be determined by testing. A person's capacity for success is not a person's IQ, and most people confuse
the two. A person's IQ is the relative "maturity" of that person's intellectual development, as compared to others that have been tested who
share that person's overall demography. The errors occur when people of differing backgrounds are directly compared with each other to determine the
IQ score of either.
Like everything a human being gets its hands on, IQ determination can get screwed up. That said, just because some people screw it up, doesn't mean
the entire premise is invalid.