Granted, the members I know just really like puzzles.
Sounds like a BS reason to dismiss the findings.
Any reason to believe that this "self-selection" has any impact on the people involved regarding "regular" non-mensa high IQ people?
>In other words, Mensans make up about 0.8% of high-IQs, and Karpinski et al. have data from less than 10% of Mensans, so the sample is seriously unrepresentative.
Again, BS.
0.08% can still be a perfectly valid sample.
The only valid reason to dismiss it would be not its size, but whether Mensans are for some reason widely non-representative of hi-iq people at large.
There's certainly interesting questions to explore here, but we shouldn't settle for this extremely weak sort of study. The authors are doing the best they can, but we should take this paper as a indication that further research in this area would be fruitful, not as an accurate measurement of the nature of reality.
I already covered that though -- and said that if there was a reason to suspect a problem with the selection, then that would be an argument (and would have to be explicitly brought forth as such).
Alone that Mensa is a small subset of the high IQ population (as was put forth) is not.
Insecure people could prefer to counter their insecurity by hard to obtain status symbols such as Mensa membership.
Secondly, I have concerns about the sample. This wasn’t a study of high-IQ people. It was a study of Mensans, a self-selected subgroup of high-IQ people. 6.5 million Americans fall in the top 2% of IQ, and only 55,000 of them are members of American Mensa.
In other words, Mensans make up about 0.8% of high-IQs, and Karpinski et al. have data from less than 10% of Mensans, so the sample is seriously unrepresentative.
The ‘national average’ comparison data, however, were taken from nationally representative American samples. The age, gender, and ethnic demographics of the Mensa respondants differ considerably from the national average.
Even if we take the results of this study at face value, the ‘hyper-brain/hyper-body’ theory is rather horribly simplistic. It reminds me of ancient Greek humorism, or 19th century neurology’s talk of ‘nervous excitement’. The brain is not a gland that just pumps excitement when aroused.