I’ve decided to revisit the Lost Column Archives with this reprise of a 1987 column I wrote about Mensa. Enjoy.
Mensa BumblersWhy would anyone join a club where people brag about their intelligence? This has to be the most irritating and boring group of people imaginable.
And, of course, I’m talking about Mensa, the most famous club of smarties. The funny thing is, now I’m not so sure that they’re smart
Well, at least that’s the impression I get when I see a Mensa mini-test in a recent issue of Cosmo.
Cosmopolitan, this month, had one of those “”theme” features where it discusses all aspects of intelligence. In one of the sidebars there was a mention of Mensa and a sampler of a Mensa smartness test. Let’s take it.
There are five questions. They are:
1) Unscramble the following word: HCPRAATEU
2) What number is one half of one quarter of one tenth of 400?
3) The same three-letter word can be placed in front of the following words to make a new word: LIGHT, BREAK, TIME.
4) Pear is to apple as potato is to…(a) banana (b) radish (c) strawberry (d) peach (e) lettuce
5) If two typists can type two pages in two minutes, how many typists will it take to type eighteen pages in six minutes?
You’ll be astonished at the bogus answers given by Mensa. They got four out of five wrong. I couldn’t believe it. Their answers were as follows: 1) PARACHUTE, 2) five, 3) DAY, 4) b. both grow in the ground, and 5) six.
How could these people be so mistaken? And they purport to be geniuses. Give me a break. The correct answers are:
1) A trick question with no answer. HCPRAATEU is not a word. The question says that it is. If they asked you to “”make a word from the following scrambled letters” then it would spell parachute. That’s not what they said.
2) This question is so easy it’s dumb. Take a calculator and put in .5 X .25 X .1 X 400 and you get 5. A ten year old could do it. Big deal. Is this the mathematical prowess needed to join Mensa?
3) Add the word DAY to these words and you get NO “”new” words. You get a bunch of old words that date back to the 16th century. What’s so “”new” about the word DAYBREAK, for example? The real answer is “”BUD.” You get BUDLIGHT, BUDBREAK, and BUDTIME. All are “”new” words.
4) The answer is lettuce. Both a potato and a lettuce make salads. While a potato and a radish both grow in the dirt they are both served differently. Since all the references are to food, one must assume food aspects. Therefore, where something grows has nothing to do with it. Otherwise the word “”gopher” would be picked if listed. Obviously, the correct answer is lettuce.
5) Another trick question. The answer as to how many typists does it take to type doesn’t exist. It’s a variable. It depends on how long they chat with each other, who is the supervisor, and whether they get a break during the job. Six typists (the MENSA answer) may take forever.
So MENSA gets four out of five wrong on its own test. I sure don’t want to have anything to do with a group that gives these naive and fallacious answers to sometimes complex questions.
–end
Column © 1987 by John C. Dvorak. This column first appeared in the San Francisco Examiner on Sept. 15, 1987.
#90–J==was there anything “negative” at all in John’s posting?
That’s a yes or no answer.
#92 bobbo
Man are you thick. I said NO! It was not satire it was tongue-in-cheek humor.
#93–J==was there anything “negative” at all in John’s posting?
That’s a yes or no answer.
#94 bobbo
Are you fucking stupid? I said NO! It was not satire it was tongue-in-cheek humor.
Instead of being a repetitive ass why don’t you look up the definition of those types of humor?
#95–J==was there anything “negative” at all in John’s posting?
That’s a yes or no answer.
Just type back yes or no. Given your inability to differentiate between intelligence and ignorance, the predicate of the question posed must be established one way or the other without interjecting related terms.
or don’t.
# 96 bobbo
yes or no.
#97–J==failure to answer questions directly is the tactic of a trapped rat. I accept your proof that you are wrong. Thanks for making it easier than it might have been.
# 98 bobbo
No bobbo. Your question is a tactic of a “drowning” rat. You don’t get to define the manner in which I respond. I answered “NO. It was not satire it was tongue-in-cheek humor.” I won’t let you trap me with a trick question just so you can go into some diatribe parsing each and every statement of JCDs
I have answered your question. You do NOT get to define the manner in which I answer it. If you are too stupid to realize that I have answered it with both a “no” and an explination as to why his article is defined as NOT negative you are too dumb to continue to debate with.
#99–J==similarly, claiming victory is the last gasp of the defeated. Don’t be sad, you can do better next time.
# 100 bobbo
“similarly, claiming victory is the last gasp of the defeated. Don’t be sad, you can do better next time.”
Not only is that patently false it also accurately describes what you did in post #98
Have you taken your meds because you are rambling now.
You have your answer. Now make your point or stop posting stupid comments.
101–J==my point is repeatedly made. You won’t answer a direct question. You lose.
#102 bobbotatlingo
“You lose.”
Aren’t you the one that just said “claiming victory is the last gasp of the defeated.”
“You won’t answer a direct question. ”
I did many times. I gave you a direct answer “NO. It was not satire it was tongue-in-cheek humor.” Are that thick that you don’t see your answer?
Make your point!!!!!!!! The answer has been given. Otherwise I will assume you don’t have a point and are just trying to find your way out of your poorly defined and poorly positioned argument.
#103–J==I have asked a fair question. You have not responded on point. Whether or not Johns article was tongue-in-cheek or satire is irrelevant. So when you say yes or no because he was being tongue-in-cheek, you are being too ambiguous.
Was there anything “negative” at all in John’s posting?
That’s a yes or no answer.
# 104 bobbo
“You have not responded on point.”
No. I haven’t responded to allow you to make a diatribe and parse JCDs article. I gave you your direct answer.
“Whether or not Johns article was tongue-in-cheek or satire is irrelevant. ”
IT IS ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT!!! but you wouldn’t know that because you don’t understand what that means. Why don’t you look up Satire and tongue-in-cheek and stop wasting my time.
“That’s a yes or no answer.”
Are you are trying to trick me into saying that it isn’t a yes or no question. Well it is and I gave you the answer. I also gave you the reason why!!!!
I answered you. “NO! It was not satire it was tongue-in-cheek humor.” That is like saying NO twice!!!! How fucking dumb are you? I CAN”T MAKE THE NO ANY BIGGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You just want to take it all out of context so that you can feel that you had a valid point. TOO BAD FOR YOU!!!!!! I won’t let you force the debate down that road. You don’t have a valid point and you are just too dumb to realize it.
#105–J==heh, heh.
# 106 bobbo
Yeah. Your stupidity is quite funny!
107–J==heh, heh.
# 108 bobbo
Yeah. Your stupidity is quite funny!
#109–J–This entire thread has been nothing but tongue-in-cheek. Or, as John said, that is what I was attempting, but I could be wrong. I’m sure you see it that way too because you are no sycophant.
# 110 bobbo
“This entire thread has been nothing but tongue-in-cheek.”
Really? Show me an example of your tongue-in-cheek humor that you posted. I don’t see it subtle or otherwise. If you were attempting it it was a failure.
Your claim about me being a sycophant, which is what started all of this, is not fitting to the definition. I do not serve JCD nor is there any self interest to be concern about. I don’t care what JCD thinks of me nor do I consider him to be influential. At least not in anything that affects me. I only was complementing his cleverness which is something I tend to do with anyone even people I don’t like. In addition I have given up no pride, principles, or respect from my peers. No one here including JCD is even close to being my peer and chance are they never will be in that elite group. 🙂
!!!–J==that smiley face saves you, barely. Now J, I did not say you were a sycophant, I said you acted sycophantally. That point is debatable with myself having the weaker position to the degree that sycophantism extends the common understanding of complimentary.
Johns post is clever. Its more appreciated when you understand how/why it was clever. Tongue-in-cheek==yes. Some negativity===yes. Some idiots only see the negativity and respond in kind. Other idiots only see the humor and respond with their own negativity.
Its all right there.
#112
“I did not say you were a sycophant”
Well actually you did. You did it using sarcasm
“I’m sure you see it that way too because you are no sycophant.”
That would be sarcasm which is different than satire. lol
“sycophantism extends the common understanding of complimentary”
NOT HARDLY!!!
“Johns post is clever.”
OMG WE AGREE!!!!!!!
“Its more appreciated when you understand how/why it was clever.”
Which was my first point. I don’t think a lot of people did get it and they just went right into attack mode against the topic of the article or against JCD for writing it.
“Tongue-in-cheek==yes. ”
OH! WE AGREE AGAIN!!!! YAY!!!
“Some negativity===yes. ”
OH! TOO BAD! I THOUGHT YOU AND I WERE GOING TO BE FRIENDS.
Not in context. What you don’t see is that CONTEXT is EVERYTHING. For instance when Chris Rock says “That is one dumb Nword.” it is funny. When Michael Richards’s or the KKK dress up cop says it, it is not. It is instead negative and offensive. If you want we can argue double standards or that some thick skulled anal retentive types think it is offensive when Chris Rock says it fine but that isn’t what this is about.
“Some idiots only see the negativity and respond in kind. ”
Some idiots saw what they wanted to see because of a built in bias.
“Other idiots only see the humor and respond with their own negativity.”
Didn’t see those posts! I did however see someone who posted responses to other negative posts pointing out that the article was not an attack piece and it wasn’t open season on Mensa members nor was it open season on JCD.
There was no negative tone in the article directed at Mensa. The article was CLEARLY written to assure that it was not to be taken seriously!! He used many techniques accomplice this.
113–J== Johns first lines: “Why would anyone join a club where people brag about their intelligence? This has to be the most irritating and boring group of people imaginable.”
Uh Huh.
From your last post: “There was no negative tone in the article directed at Mensa”
Not only are you clearly wrong, you have a short attention span, and you have been proven wrong.
# 114 bobbo
“From your last post: “There was no negative tone in the article directed at Mensa”
I knew you were just itching to take something out of context. You REALLY need to read up on tongue-in-cheek humor. After all this debate you still don’t get it.
Anyone who continued to read the whole article would see that it was tongue-in-cheek humor. What you are doing is exactly what FOX News does all the time. They take things out of context and report only part of the info to suit their needs.
The article is to be judges as a whole not in parts.
I can take things out of context and give them a whole new meaning too watch
“please post an article about how much sex men with big dicks get. She probably wants to avoid hurting my feelings.” -bobbo
Isn’t fair to take things out of context is it? Without context it doesn’t really come across the same does it.
Anyone who didn’t read the article all the way through should bother posting because they come to the table ill informed about what the thread is about. If they had read it and understood it chances are they would not be offended and would not have taken it as a sign to bash Mensa
#115–J==live anywhere near california? I’m having a few beers right now, and I’d like to buy you one.
Once again, you prove my case.
“Anyone who continued to read the whole article”——now, in the nature of a yes/no response, please tell me what it is that continued reading must overcome?
What might that be—-hmmmm?
Now, on big dicks, yes, my wife complains about that all the time. How did you know that?
Some people will not read past the first few sentences. If the header was nothing but humor, they wouldn’t see negativity. Chris Rock saying nigger is negative==you “apply” some exterior construct to remove the sting. In Johns article, the lead in is negative. You have to continue reading to remove the negative sting.
Simple. Only an idiot would disagree.
# 116 bobbo
“live anywhere near california? I’m having a few beers right now, and I’d like to buy you one”
No moved out of LA a long time ago.
“now, in the nature of a yes/no response, please tell me what it is that continued reading must overcome?”
I don’t think anything needed to be overcome because unlike you I don’t take things out of context before passing judgment.
“Now, on big dicks, yes, my wife complains about that all the time. How did you know that?”
She complains you don’t have one? (That was the nice response. I could have been very nasty about that one. My beef is with you not your wife so…. You should be more careful
“Some people will not read past the first few sentences. If the header was nothing but humor, they wouldn’t see negativity. ”
THE JOKE WOULDN’T WORK!!!!!!!!!!!! They, just like you, would then be lazy and stupid and don’t deserve to be entertained by his musings.
Stop posting and do some learning. Read about tongue-in-cheek humor. Understand its construct. Then come back and we can discuss if JCD was successful at it or not.
“Chris Rock saying nigger is negative==you “apply” some exterior construct to remove the sting.”
Yes it is negative but in context it is not offensive. Wow! I can’t believe you fell for that. LOL 🙂
“In Johns article, the lead in is negative.”
SO WHAT????? You have been harping on that issue as if it has some importance. You just wanted to parse his article didn’t you? You can parse it till the cows come home. That doesn’t change the fact that the article wasn’t negative and wasn’t offensive. AND IT DOESN’T HAVE TWO MEANINGS!!!!!!!!
WHAT IS YOUR POINT!!!!
Are you jumping all over the place to try and find an area of contention that you might win with? Sorry but you are wrong and doing nothing but digging. The original argument is about you making ad hominem attacks against me for complementing JCD and criticizing those who were either too stupid to realize or didn’t bother to read the article and instead went into attack mode against Mensa and JCD.
Do you have a problem with me doing that? If so say it! Stop pretending that you have some foundation to your rambling nonsense.
Well Jay—-I have had a few beers. All I want to do is bask in my good feelings towards my fellow man.
I’ll close for today and pick up tomorrow.
But in summary–I really don’t know why you enjoy denying the interim steps that get you nonetheless to your ultimate reality.
It funny that mostly we agree on the main topic and disagree on the diseratta. But on that disserattta, you either see the negative elements, which you actually have admitted you do, or you don’t. The fact that the negative elements are necessary to the humor you admit to is not obviated by the “overall” tongue-in-cheek.” Puerile of you to argue otherwise, puerile to not answer direct question.
You’ll grow out of it, or remain a dick.
#118 bobbo
LETS GET SOME FACTS STRAIGHT. I will highlight your posts so you can see how ridiculous your argument is.
“The piece was also an attack on Mensa. Not just an attack and it was done with humor ” -bobbo #61
That is far different from saying it contains “negative elements.” I proved you wrong with JCD own statements about it not being an attack piece. Then I went on to explain tongue-in-cheek humor and how JCDs article really fit into that description and not satire which would be an attack piece with humor.
Then you go on to question the veracity of JCDs comment where he said it wasn’t and attack piece.
“Attack on Mensa–so who says JCD is correct in his assessment? ” – bobbo #63
HE WROTE THE FUCKING PIECE!!!! That’s how I know his assessment is correct!!!!
Then you continue with a STRAWMAN argument about how a Cop playing KKK dress up thought he was funny too.
“The Cop in the KKK outfit thinks he was being funny too. As I said, funny AND attacking. ” -bobbo #63
I didn’t get that the first time around. You think dressing up as a KKK member is funny? Maybe it is for yokels like you. Either way that would be satire, lacking the wit, not tongue-in-cheek humor. Tongue-in-cheek humor is not to be taken as serious and is subtle. Satire is meant to be an attack and is not subtle. Dressing up in a KKK costume is anything but subtle and it is also an attack. What JCD put in his article was not to be taken seriously and is subtle or at least subtle enough that some people didn’t get it. Needless to say the whole KKK thing is a strawman argument. By classifying the type of humor I have decimated your strawman argument yet you don’t understand the importance of that and continue down that road until post #69
Then you post this.
““You have a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts.” and that is my problem with your posts. You substitute your opinion as facts (or logic?).” – bobbo #69
I respond by saying
“Show me proof that anything I said is false. Better yet show me one place I have stated my opinion as fact.” -J #73
In post #74 you completely side step the issue and attempt to switch the debate
“my post #67 is a good example. Your response to it did not advance the conversation and became unpleasurable for me, so I quit.” – bobbo #74
Was that your proof? Of corse not! You have no proof to back up your claims. Then you blather on claiming all sorts of nonsense with no evidence to back it up.
Then in post #76 you try and switch the debate again by turning it into a discussion of “What is comedy” . You fail miserably.
“Now, “humor.” What makes something funny? Usually it is a juxtaposition of two conflicting elements.- bobbo #76
Not only is this blatantly wrong is is also simple minded. Did you get that off Wikipedia or did you just make that up. To use one of your examples. Juxtaposing the KKK and the NAACP isn’t very funny. Juxtaposing fire and water isn’t very funny. Juxtaposing Al Qaeda and The US. Military isn’t funny. You can’t look up humor on the internet and expect to understand how it works. You need to learn it and explore it.
“I think John was gently mocking the Mensa types for missing what the Cosmo readers got” – bobbo #76
Here you try to redefine the article, despite what JCD himself has said so that you can transition back to your claims that it was an attack piece. The whole time ignoring what JCD himself said. Too bad for you that mockery, attacking, and negative are not synonymous.
Then in post #88 you start with this crap.
“was there anything “negative” at all in John’s posting?” – bobbo #88
At this point I never said there wasn’t. Still doesn’t make it an attack piece as you first claimed. Then I answer you and you keep asking the same question again and again. I can only assume this is a an attempt to connect negative to attack and prove that your initial statement was correct even when you know it wasn’t. Again negative and attack are not synonymous.
Then the whole debate went out the window because you went on an expedition to parse JCDs article to find one shred of evidence to back up your initial statement.
Let me say this. YES there are negative statements in his article. That however does not make the article negative and that does not make the article have two meaning. There is no requirement in comedy for there to be a double entendre. It also does not make the article ” an attack on Mensa” as you first stated. You were wrong to say it and you are wrong now. You are doing nothing but playing Three Card Monty to find some resemblance of a rational argument.
Just so we are clear.
THE ARGUMENT IS NOT ABOUT NEGATIVE ELEMENT IN THE ARTICLE. IT IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER NEGATIVE ELEMENTS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE COMEDIC EFFECT. IT IS ABOUT YOUR FALSE CLAIM THAT THE ARTICLE WAS “an attack on Mensa”. IT IS NOT!!!!!!! YOU WERE PROVEN WRONG SEVERAL TIMES!!! YET YOU CAN’T ACCEPT THAT SO YOU RESORT TO AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AND REDIRECTION OF THE DEBATE TO THE FORMER MENTIONED.
NOW EITHER BACK UP WHAT YOU SAID “The piece was also an attack on Mensa.” – bobbo OR STFU!!!!!!!
111–J==your points:
1. “The piece was also an attack on Mensa. Not just an attack and it was done with humor ” -bobbo #61
That is far different from saying it contains “negative elements.”==/// I agree. I overstated my case. Note the issue I tried to get you to focus on was “negativity” and not attack–so I was thinking correctly if not posting consistently with what I was thinking.
2. I proved you wrong with JCD own statements about it not being an attack piece. /// A persons own statement is proof only of his private intent==not what was actually posted. The KKK cop is proof of that.
3. Let me say this. YES there are negative statements in his article. /// Why was that so hard? When you won’t admit to simple truths, how much of an argument on more complicated issues should you fairly expect?
The negativity in Johns article was noticed by many of those who posted in response to that negativity before or instead of reading in greater depth to see the humor. That’s why humor is dangerous==just as the KKK cop found out. Your continuing failure to see the parallel between John’s piece and the KKK cop and characterizing your opinion on the comparison as “fact” is erroneous.
4–That however does not make the article negative and that does not make the article have two meaning. /// Given the response by the readers—it certainly does. We both think those readers are wrong, but that’s just our opinion. Why is our opinion any better than anyone else’s?
5–NOW EITHER BACK UP WHAT YOU SAID “The piece was also an attack on Mensa.”/// To the degree the piece had negative elements, it was also an attack on Mensa. On the Richter Scale, this attack in my opinion is .2 (on that log scale up to 7).
6. OR STFU!!!!!!! //// No.
# 120 bobbo
“I agree. I overstated my case”
Well we are making progress.
“Note the issue I tried to get you to focus on was “negativity” and not attack–so ”
That’s because you knew that your original statement was false and were trying to parse his words and label some of them negative in an attempt to give more foundation to your original claim! LAME FUCKING ATTEMPT!! Just because an article has SOME out of context negativity does not make it an “attack piece” nor does it make it a negative article. The out of context “negative elements” are a device used to fool the reader so that the joke works. If you noticed he doesn’t completely reveal his final punch line until his response to question 5. He gradually builds to it with a slight bump in the middle as to hint of what’s to come and then hits it home with the response to question 5. Then he wraps it up. It wouldn’t have worked if he came out of the gate saying it was a joke.
“A persons own statement is proof only of his private intent==not what was actually posted. ”
Are you trying to be philosophical? Even if JCD had never posted his intent it doesn’t matter. The article is CLEARLY written in a tongue-in-cheek manner.
“The KKK cop is proof of that.”
I have already dispelled this silly strawman argument.
“Why was that so hard? When you won’t admit to simple truths, how much of an argument on more complicated issues should you fairly expect?”
Perhaps I wasn’t clear on that! It was late. I was tired. YES there are negative statement if taken out of context!!!! So no victory for you.
“The negativity in Johns article was noticed by many of those who posted in response to that negativity before or instead of reading in greater depth to see the humor. ”
There wasn’t negativity unless you take it out of context. That is what my 2 original posts were all about!!!!!! Are you that much of a dumb shit?
“That’s why humor is dangerous”
Wow that has to be the most crazy thing you have ever said!!!!
“Your continuing failure to see the parallel between John’s piece and the KKK cop and characterizing your opinion on the comparison as “fact” is erroneous.”
Your continuing failure to see that there is NO parallel between JCDs piece and the KKK dress up cop is why you have NO credibility in this debate. What I pointed out is FACT. The definitions of Satire and Tongue-in-Cheek are all the evidence I need to back that up. JCDs piece easily fits the definition of Tongue-in-cheek and the KKK cop easily fits the definition of Satire. Tongue-in-cheek is not meant to be taken seriously. Satire is an attack on something with or with out humor. I personally don’t think the KKK cop was funny. I know you do because you said so.
“Given the response by the readers—it certainly does. ”
Just because the readers didn’t get it or didn’t read it completely doesn’t mean it has two meanings. The only way it would have two meaning is if JCD himself intended it to. He claims he did not intend that. He used a form or written that very CLEARLY positioned his article as one from the tongue-in-cheek style.
“To the degree the piece had negative elements, it was also an attack on Mensa.”
HOW FUCKING DUMB ARE YOU?????? Just because it’s uses a tongue-in-cheek humor doesn’t mean it is an attack. Why can’t you grasp that? If it was an attack it would be SATIRE. The very definition of SATIRE precludes JCDs article from being described that way.