Mention of Race?

Mortmain

Why, when recounting experiences e.g. "I came home the other day to find my house being broken into by..." do people always find the need to mention the race of the person involved - Mexican, Romanian (who seems to be any Eastern European, Nigerian (any African) etc. Yet when it comes to an Irish person, they just say "scumbag"

Any thoughts?

The Free Man

what i believe is that everybody is stereotypical and hypocritical.......

celticwarriorjb

great another race thread, fantastic. I predict Everyones gonna say how they dont refer to people by their race, but everyone else does and everyone else is really racist but not them.

SparkyLarks

If they say I came home to find my house being broken into by a man are they being sexist.

People always try to classify people. If it was an Albino they would probalby tell you this fact. If it was a buisness man they would probably tell you that. Race is an easily identifiable characteristic. If a person with a wooden leg and parrot had broken into their housem, the'd probably say my house was broken into by a pirate.
You only hear about other races becasue if no extra information is given you assume irish. If I hear that two people robbed a bank, i'll assume they are irish, because the chances are they are irish, we have a lot of irish people living in this country. If more information is given then I might know there not Irish or are pirates or whatever.

If a mexican did break into your house however
To say My house was broken into by a mexican is not a racist comment. It is mearly providing more information to whoever you are telling, you might also say they were massive or short or fat, is that sizist, you might even say that they were gorgeous. you might say they wer wearing jeans.

If I came home to Salma Hayek robbing my house I might say , this gorgeous mexican broke into my house. I might even say Salma Hayek broke into my house, all to provide whoever I am telling with more information.

Zombrex

SparkyLarks wrote:

People always try to classify people.

True,

Even if a country like the UK or USA where the nation is more dirverse when it comes to ethnic origin than Ireland it would still be not uncommon to use race as one of the first things to say to the police. For example if I was black, lived in a largly black neighbourhood of New York, and was broken into by a white guy I might say to the police he was "tall, white, black hair". The fact that he was white would probably stick out in my mind.

If I was on the other hand robbed by a black guy I might not think to mention that straight away because it would not stick out as out of the ordinary, my ordinary, that he was black.

Racism only comes from the assumptions made based on knowing the skin colour. If you say "it was a black guy" and the police go out pull over the first random black guy they find, that is racist.

MrJoeSoap

SparkyLarks wrote:

If I came home to Salma Hayek robbing my house I might say , this gorgeous mexican broke into my house. I might even say Salma Hayek broke into my house, all to provide whoever I am telling with more information.

Wonderful, wonderful analogy!

Dades

Mortmain wrote:

Why, when recounting experiences e.g. "I came home the other day to find my house being broken into by..." do people always find the need to mention the race of the person involved - Mexican, Romanian (who seems to be any Eastern European, Nigerian (any African) etc. Yet when it comes to an Irish person, they just say "scumbag"

Any thoughts?

Mortmain (we meet again )

How would you describe, say, an "Oriental" thief to the first person you spoke to?

Isn't it more racist to refrain from describing someone using the charateristic that distinguishes them more than any other? Isn't that the same thing as saying races are inequal?

In a make-believe world where racism had never been heard of, would it still not be okay to describe a thief by their colouration?

Mortmain

The Atheist wrote:

Mortmain (we meet again )

How would you describe, say, an "Oriental" thief to the first person you spoke to?

Isn't it more racist to refrain from describing someone using the charateristic that distinguishes them more than any other? Isn't that the same thing as saying races are inequal?

In a make-believe world where racism had never been heard of, would it still not be okay to describe a thief by their colouration?

Thank God for Atheists! (followed your directions and ended up here)

I suppose that what I was trying to get at is why should it matter what the thiefs race was in the first place? Why do we feel the need to classify people? I wasn't trying to insinuate that anyone who does this is in some way racist - merely that it seems, to me, strange that this is one of the first items of information that people offer when recounting such experiences.

When it comes to your I have yet to hear of a white person (regardless of what country they live in) refer to being mugged/robbed etc. by 'a white guy', the same also goes for black people, oriental people, hispanics etc. this only seems to arise when there is an interracial element - what is it about society that makes us deem this important. Is it something we become unknowingly conditioned to do? I can't say I haven't done it myself.

Macmorris

Mortmain wrote:

what is it about society that makes us deem this important. Is it something we become unknowingly conditioned to do? I can't say I haven't done it myself.

I would think it has very little to do with social conditioning. It's more likely to be a genetic adaption to living in groups. Human beings are a tribal species. We evolved in small tribal groups where being able to distinguish between in-groups and out-groups would have been an important part of tribe's survival. It's no surprise therefore that the first thing we identify in strangers is how foreign they are.

The fact that people are quick to identify the race of someone just shows as well how misguided people are who say that race doesn't exist. If race doesn't exist why does it seem to play such an important part in the way that people identify themselves and others?

nobodythere

Human beings have always survived through groups, it's evolution. It's perfectly natural to treat others as outsiders simply because where they came from. However, what's always natural isn't always right.

Does anyone else believe that the human race is NATURALLY racist? Not to say that we naturally believe people of other races are inferior, but that we treat them as outsiders? I for one have had to fight against natural racist inclinations...

Mortmain

grasshopa wrote:

Does anyone else believe that the human race is NATURALLY racist? Not to say that we naturally believe people of other races are inferior, but that we treat them as outsiders? I for one have had to fight against natural racist inclinations...

This is what I was getting at, and yes I do belive that we have natural predisposition towards racism. Perhaps it's a hangover to our more tribal days, perhaps it's a result of more recent human developments. Surely though, in todays Globally integrated societies, the race of any particular person should be assuming less importance - yet it's there. I too have to fight against a natural inclination to classify according to race on some occassions.

It comes down to the nature v's nurture debate, I suppose - personally I don't belive that it's a genetic issue, I'm much more of the opinion that it is socially created. To be honest, I would be most interested in people's opinions on whether or not this cycle can or will be broken?, will we ever live in a society where race is deemed insignificant?

Hagar

Watch "The Bill" for example, "the burgler was an IC2 male". That specifies the race clearly to a policeman , in The Bill of course. It is common for police forces to have a description convention to identify a person's race without saying the actual words.

It is not racist to specify a person's race to identify a suspect involved in a crime.

If I was mugged / burgled by a black guy, asian guy that's exactly what I would tell the Gardaí. This would greatly reduce their workload as they could ignore the major part of the population who aren't black or asian. The same applies to being mugged by white scumbag, the Gardaí could then ignore all non-scumbag types, this would naturally include all blacks, asians etc as they wouldn't fit the profile.

The world has gone PC made. Being non-white doesn't make you an angel any more than being white does.

nobodythere

Every time I hear something like a foreigner robbing an Irish guy I suddenly feel like I have a pitch fork in my hand going "THEM FECKIN FOREIGNERS COMING IN HERE AND TAKING OUR JOBS!".

Gotta pose the question: Has anyone here NOT had to fight against natural racist inclinations?

We grew up in a TV world where every black guy is a thug or a break-dancer (the latter being worse of course). I still have this image in my head that the majority of thugs in America are black people, yet I have never seen a non-fictional example of this at all. In a sense I think that at the very least, the media has created this division and separation. And if the stereotype is true, it's not because black people are less intelligent, but because they've been kept in the ghettos for so long. The racism didn't end with the Martin Luther King.

In Galway, I grew up in a world afraid of travellers. If someone stole your taxi, your mother would say "oh the travellers stole it". You stayed away from the travellers in your school because it meant getting your ass kicked. I went 15/16 years without ever having a good encounter with a traveller (and one of them stole our fookin Buckfast last night!) and I HATED them... by which I mean I feared them. I'm dying to know what sort of world they've grown up in that makes them lash out at everything...

I remember watching a video in religion class about the Apartheid governnment and how one set of parents said that if their child married a black man they would disown her. This seems so incomprehensible to us, but what would yer mammy say if you brought a traveller home?

Generally around the streets of Galway the black people stay with the black people and the white people with the white people. This doesn't have anything to do with racism, but because no white people in galway have an opportunity to meet black people. When I'm walking past a primary school on my way into town I have to stop and watch them all play because it's a sight I've never seen before. About 30% of the kids are black. And they all play freely with each other.

With regards to these black awards etc etc, I don't believe that you inherit the actions of your ancestors. If your 'people' have been opressed by former generations, it does not give you the right to oppress the descendents of the oppressors. Judging who your people are simply by the colour of their skin is RACISM.

To not be racist we have to judge people as individuals. It pisses me off to hear this **** about retaliating against '800 years of oppression'. It's BULL****. This oppression was not against you and any retaliation you can give will not hurt the oppressors at all. I'm sick of people trying to identify with causes and power trip groups just so they can feel like they have a purpose. It's a pity we can't break the barriers between accents and skin colour and shake hands as human beings

rubadub

It is being descriptive rather than racist. In mexico the burgled guy would say to his mates he was burgled by a "el scumbago" it was a mexican or a white guy (or gringo) if it was a caucasian. You are just telling a story and adding detail. If the guy had no leg it would not offend similar people if you mentioned it.

Now if I said my house was robbed by a caucasian I doubt anybody would accuse me of being racist.

Macmorris

Hagar wrote:

If I was mugged / burgled by a black guy, asian guy that's exactly what I would tell the Gardaí. This would greatly reduce their workload as they could ignore the major part of the population who aren't black or asian. The same applies to being mugged by white scumbag, the Gardaí could then ignore all non-scumbag types, this would naturally include all blacks, asians etc as they wouldn't fit the profile.

The world has gone PC made. Being non-white doesn't make you an angel any more than being white does.

I agree completely. It's worth remembering as well that racial profiling has been used against white criminals just as effectively as it has against black criminals. I remember reading that the first case of racial profiling in America was used to track down some white serial killer. I don't think many white people complained of racism at the time.

grasshoppa wrote:

I still have this image in my head that the majority of thugs in America are black people, yet I have never seen a non-fictional example of this at all.

I find that very hard to believe.

And if the stereotype is true, it's not because black people are less intelligent, but because they've been kept in the ghettos for so long.

But the evidence indicates that black people are less intelligent than white people. The evidence also indicates a strong correlation between low intelligence and criminal and thuggish behaviour. It means that statistically, because of their low-intelligence, blacks are more likely to be involved in crime and other forms of anti-social behaviour.

Mortmain

Macmorris wrote:

But the evidence indicates that black people are less intelligent than white people. The evidence also indicates a strong correlation between low intelligence and criminal and thuggish behaviour. It means that statistically, because of their low-intelligence, blacks are more likely to be involved in crime and other forms of anti-social behaviour.

Yup, that Martin Luther King sure was one dumb son of a b*tch :rolleyes: - I really hope that you're just trying to raise a response.

aidan_walsh

Macmorris wrote:

But the evidence indicates that black people are less intelligent than white people. The evidence also indicates a strong correlation between low intelligence and criminal and thuggish behaviour. It means that statistically, because of their low-intelligence, blacks are more likely to be involved in crime and other forms of anti-social behaviour.

So you're black then?

Hagar

aidan_walsh wrote:

So you're black then?

I doff my cap to you sir.:D

Macmorris

Mortmain wrote:

Yup, that Martin Luther King sure was one dumb son of a b*tch :rolleyes:

No, I'm sure he was very intelligent, but I was talking about average group differences. On average, black people have lower IQs than white people. It doesn't mean that every black man is less intelligent than every white man, just that most white men are more intelligent than most black men. Of course there are exceptions, but the exceptions only prove the rule. Just as there are some women who are taller than the average men, most women are smaller than the average man. I don't think anyone has a problem with the proposition that men are taller than women. Why should it be any different when making the same kind of claim about racial differences?

I really hope that you're just trying to raise a response.

I was just making the point that there are other reasons besides white racism and poverty that explain why black people commit so much crime. It's a verifiable fact that people with low IQs commit more crime than people with average IQs. There's nothing racist about pointing that out. It applies to all ethnic groups, to white people just as much as black people.

Dades

Macmorris wrote:

On average, black people have lower IQs than white people.

I wonder if you're going to be banned again for this.

It appears a couple of days worth of rants have disappeared.
Pain in the butt.

Zombrex

Macmorris wrote:

On average, black people have lower IQs than white people.

Yes but IQ tests have been widely, and for sometime, been dismissed as a reflection of intelligence. As my science teacher in school said, having a high IQ means you are good a IQ tests.

Also, "intelligence" is not a single attribute like "height" or "weight". It cannot be pinned down in something as definiate as an IQ number. Classically, intelligence is often attributed to acedemic excellence in a particular field. A professor of computer science would probably be considered intelligent. But my mother loves telling the story of a professor in the 70s that was a friend of her family who was quite weird, had very little social graces and very little cop-on for situations around him, who put his hand into boiling water to get out a egg that he was cooking for breakfast. So is he intelligent? He can be award acedemic medals in his field but doesn't properly realise or understand one of the most basic fundamentals of physics, namely things get very hot when heated.

Another example would be someone like a football player. Now the general stereotype is that footballers are a bit thick. They often leave school early or with limited education to focus on football. But most professional footballers have incrediable visual and spacial awareness, can carry out complex plays and moves and antispiate well in advance actions and reactions. But would you consider a footballer as intelligent as a chess player?

Macmorris wrote:

I was just making the point that there are other reasons besides white racism and poverty that explain why black people commit so much crime.

A number of assumptions here.

Firstly the link between poverty and crime in America explains far better the incarraration rates of blacks than IQ scores. The vast majority of blacks in American prisions are not there because of violent crimes, they are there because of drug related crimes. And the link between drugs and poverty are well established. If you look at a country such as Ireland, with a tiny population of black people, you see the same pattern of higher incarraration of the poor for drug crime. Also the statistics of blacks committing violent crime fall way often with black young adults who leave inner city areas. Do all of them suddenly get smarter? So it has very little to do with them being black, and a lot to do with them being poor.

Secondly, black people don't commit "so much crime". You are far far more likely to commit white collar crimes such as fraud, blackmail etc if you are a white american. And taking into account population spread, if you are white you are far more likely to simply break the law in the USA. So by your (flawed) logic, being white makes you more likely to disregard the rule of law in America (which is nonsense, I use it to point out the flaws in your sweeping assumptions).

Macmorris

The Atheist wrote:

I wonder if you're going to be banned again for this.

Damn it, why did you have to say anything? I was hoping to piss them off by just continuing on as though nothing had happened. I'm not holding out much hope though. The global war to save the world from racism isn't likely to come to an end because of some technical glitch. At least it gives me a chance to respond.

Wicknight wrote:

Also, "intelligence" is not a single attribute like "height" or "weight". It cannot be pinned down in something as definiate as an IQ number.

It's true that intelligence is something that is very difficult to define but I think of intelligence as some general overall factor that is a sort of average of different kinds of intelligence.

Another example would be someone like a football player. Now the general stereotype is that footballers are a bit thick. They often leave school early or with limited education to focus on football. But most professional footballers have incrediable visual and spacial awareness, can carry out complex plays and moves and antispiate well in advance actions and reactions. But would you consider a footballer as intelligent as a chess player?

That's a valid point. Most people accept that there are different kinds of intelligence, but I still think that there is such a thing as an overall level of intelligence.

The best way to think of the measurement of intelligence would be to compare it to measurement of physical strength. Two men may be strong in different ways but one might be just stronger overall than the other one. A cyclist may have stronger leg muscles than a boxer for example, and a boxer may have bigger biceps than the cyclist but does that mean they are both equally strong and that their different strengths perfectlly cancel each other out? I would think that one of them would probably be stronger overall. It's the same thing with intelligence. Everyone is intelligent in a different way but some people just have a higher general level of intelligent to others.

You could argue that there is no way of measuring that general overall factor but I think IQ tests give a good approximation of the average across different kinds of intelligence.

Firstly the link between poverty and crime in America explains far better the incarraration rates of blacks than IQ scores.

Not entirely. People have lived, and still live, in levels of poverty far worse than black Americans and they don't seem to be as heavily involved in crime. As far as I know, American Indians live in levels of poverty worse than blacks and yet the rate at which they commit crime is below black people's. If it was purely related to poverty then you would expect all racial and ethnic groups at the same social level to commit crime at roughly the same rate and I don't think that is the case. Poor blacks commit more crime than poor people of other races.

The vast majority of blacks in American prisions are not there because of violent crimes, they are there because of drug related crimes.

I don't know why you mentioned prisons but according to this, blacks are much more likely to be charged with violent crime than whites.

You are far far more likely to commit white collar crimes such as fraud, blackmail etc if you are a white american.

I would think that's probably only because white people are more likely to be in a position to commit that kind of crime in the first place.

And taking into account population spread, if you are white you are far more likely to simply break the law in the USA. So by your (flawed) logic, being white makes you more likely to disregard the rule of law in America (which is nonsense, I use it to point out the flaws in your sweeping assumptions).

You've missed the point. I was talking about the different per-capita rates a which different ethnic groups commit crime, not about the overall incidence of crime. What I said is that different ethnic groups commit crime at much higher rates than others. I can't see how you've shown that that isn't the case.

Hagar

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but IQ tests have been widely, and for sometime, been dismissed as a reflection of intelligence. As my science teacher in school said, having a high IQ means you are good a IQ tests.

I suspect that you will find that statements like these are made by people who haven't done too well in IQ tests.

IQ measurement is a valid indication of how intelligent a person is.
Just as height measurement is a valid indication of how tall a person is.

Having a high IQ doesn't make a person any better than any other person no more than being taller makes you a better person than someone else. It just says that you are taller, likewise high IQ says you are smarter.

This is absolutely not in support of any racial slur.

bonkey

Macmorris wrote:

It's true that intelligence is something that is very difficult to define but I think of intelligence as some general overall factor that is a sort of average of different kinds of intelligence.

There may well be...but no-one has found a reasonable and objective way to measure it yet.

Two men may be strong in different ways but one might be just stronger overall than the other one. A cyclist may have stronger leg muscles than a boxer for example, and a boxer may have bigger biceps than the cyclist but does that mean they are both equally strong and that their different strengths perfectlly cancel each other out? I would think that one of them would probably be stronger overall.

I would agree with your thinking. However, when push came to shove, I would be at an utter loss to find an objective way of determining which of the two people it was. Have you figured it out?

You could argue that there is no way of measuring that general overall factor but I think IQ tests give a good approximation of the average across different kinds of intelligence.

Unfortunately, the evidence would tend to lean against you.

Give an IQ test to an illiterate who has no formal education. Then tell me this is a fair assessment of their intelligence.

If it was purely related to poverty then you would expect all racial and ethnic groups at the same social level to commit crime at roughly the same rate and I don't think that is the case.

Fair point. I assume you will also concede that if it were linked to IQ (which rightly or wrongly you see as a reasonable measure of intelligence) then one would find a far greater correlation across people of comparable IQs then across racial distinctions where one can make a general statement that the average IQ is marginally different.

I don't know why you mentioned prisons but according to this, blacks are much more likely to be charged with violent crime than whites.

Operative words : violent and charged with. They say something like 70% of all rape goes unreported. Does that mean that the 30% that is reported is necessarily still representative of the full 100%, or could one envisage that there are entire sub-classes that go mostly/entirely unreported?

As you yourself have pointed out, they're "obviously" less likely to be involved in white-collar crime because its mostly white-dominated. So could/should one not make a similar distinction with violent crime? That it is - at least partially - socially related?

I was talking about the different per-capita rates a which different ethnic groups commit crime, not about the overall incidence of crime.

But you ignore the different social constituencies and historical backgrounds of the different ethnic groups. This leaves you with a single correlation which you can conclude is causation, but doesn't make your argument convincing in my book.

jc

bonkey

Hagar wrote:

I suspect that you will find that statements like these are made by people who haven't done too well in IQ tests

Anecdotally, the only people I've heard say it before Wicknight are myself and people I know have IQs high enough to qualify for membership in Mensa.

jc

Hagar

bonkey wrote:

Anecdotally, the only people I've heard say it before Wicknight are myself and people I know have IQs high enough to qualify for membership in Mensa.

jc

That would be me then and I didn't scrape in either.
I have been a member for about 27 years and I still am not any taller.

nesf

Hagar wrote:

I suspect that you will find that statements like these are made by people who haven't done too well in IQ tests.

IQ tests have their uses and do show some interesting statistics when applied but they it's a pretty big assumption to assume that they are an accurate measurement of intelligence.

I prefer to think of them as being a useful statistical tool when applied to large groups but that individual scores have little meaning. Same as statistics in general.

Edit: For example, and to make myself clearer.

Looking at groups of individuals in a certain grouping, say 120-135, can show very interesting trends in the group. But you can't take those trends and apply them to an individual of IQ 123 and expect them to be in any way accurate.

I would extend that to look at say two individuals with IQ 120 and IQ 121 respectively. With such a small difference is it really valid to say that one is more intelligent than the other? Perhaps the person with 120 just was having a bad day etc. I don't think you can infer a lot from an individual's score. But you can see quite interesting tendencies across groups of individuals with similar scores.

IQ is a useful statistical tool but I think it's misused when held up as an absolute measurement of a person's intelligence.

Dades

nesf wrote:

IQ tests have their uses and do show some interesting statistics when applied but they it's a pretty big assumption to assume that they are an accurate measurement of intelligence.

I don't think it's a big assumption that a test designed to measure your "Intelligence Quotient" is a reasonable measure of your intellignce.

nesf wrote:

I prefer to think of them as being a useful statistical tool when applied to large groups but that individual scores have little meaning. Same as statistics in general.

Are you sure you meant to say this?

Surely IQ tests are more relevant on an individual level than when averaged, and taken as part of a group. IQ tests are only relevant in determining what areas of expertise (e.g. numbers, spacial awareness etc.) an individual performs strongly in.

IQ test result statistics in general are useless, particularly when they purport to show that one race is less intelligent than another. You don't have to be smart to know that that kind of information benefits no-one.

Zombrex

Macmorris wrote:

I think of intelligence as some general overall factor that is a sort of average of different kinds of intelligence.
...
That's a valid point. Most people accept that there are different kinds of intelligence, but I still think that there is such a thing as an overall level of intelligence.

What do you base that theory on?

Macmorris wrote:

I would think that one of them would probably be stronger overall. It's the same thing with intelligence. Everyone is intelligent in a different way but some people just have a higher general level of intelligent to others.

Macmorris you are kinda contracting your points there. Firstly you are saying, rightly that different people can have different strength in different muscles, and comparing a boxer to a cyclist is pointless because they have strenghts in different areas. But then you bring "general strenght" into it, which seems to go completely against your first point. What is "general strength", and how is it meassured.

Macmorris wrote:

You could argue that there is no way of measuring that general overall factor but I think IQ tests give a good approximation of the average across different kinds of intelligence.

Well not really, as has already been mentioned IQ tests have been widely critised. Just because a cyclist is better at cycling than a boxer doesn't mean he is stronger than a boxer. Likewise, having a high IQ simply means that you are good at IQ tests (which is a good thing, but not really a reflection of intelligence compared to someone who doesn't score as high as you, just like the boxer might not win the Tour de France)

Macmorris wrote:

Not entirely. People have lived, and still live, in levels of poverty far worse than black Americans and they don't seem to be as heavily involved in crime.

Show me an area of high poverty that does not have a much higher drug or violent crime rate than area of wealth in the same country or area.

Macmorris wrote:

As far as I know, American Indians live in levels of poverty worse than blacks and yet the rate at which they commit crime is below black people's.

Glad you mentioned native Americans. You are right, they live in high levels of poverty and unemployment. Read on ...

Enlarging the Healing Circle: Ensuring Justice for American Indian Children. (2000). Washington, DC: Coalition for Juvenile Justice. wrote:

This report shows that Native American youth are being arrested for crimes, such as larceny-theft and liquor law violations, at double to triple the expected rate. The report identifies substance abuse, depression, gang involvement and faulty legal procedures as major underlying causes of Native American youth delinquency

Macmorris wrote:

Poor blacks commit more crime than poor people of other races.

Simply not true.

Macmorris wrote:

I would think that's probably only because white people are more likely to be in a position to commit that kind of crime in the first place.

Exactly. The types of crimes are a reflection of economic and social standing, not skin colour or race. Once again we get back to the basic fact that it is about poverty not race.

Macmorris wrote:

What I said is that different ethnic groups commit crime at much higher rates than others.

And I am saying they don't. Different types of crimes can be linked to different social and cultural aspects. Poor native americans, poor blacks, and poor white are more likely to commit violent or drug related crimes than wealthy people. But wealthy (relatively speaking) white people are far more likely to commit other types of crimes than poor black people.

What you get in reality is that a certain amount of people, no matter what their skin colour, are going to break the law. Their circumstances determine what type of crime they commit. But there is nothing in being simply black (such as low intelligence) that makes you more likely to break the law than a white person.

Zombrex

Hagar wrote:

I suspect that you will find that statements like these are made by people who haven't done too well in IQ tests.

IQ measurement is a valid indication of how intelligent a person is.

And I would suspect that you will find statements like these are made by people who are more interested in the prestiege of having a Mensa membership than actually understanding what "intelligence" really is ... go figure ...

Hagar

There's no prestiege whatsoever. Most of the members I met were socially inept.

In 27 years I went to 2 meetings. The first one, natural enthusiasm. God knows why I went to the second.

BTW all the people I met were white, maybe the non-whites had better things to do with their time.

"It's all very well having intelligence but you must have the brains to use it"