No, the "methodology" of using a very self-selected group to represent the whole is certainly and unambiguously complete methodological bullshit. The problem is known as "confounding variables" or "common latent cause". For example, people with anxiety and depression may be more likely to join a club like Mensa.
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.
>For example, people with anxiety and depression may be more likely to join a club like Mensa.
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.
> Any reason to believe that this "self-selection" has any impact on the people involved regarding "regular" non-mensa high IQ people?
Insecure people could prefer to counter their insecurity by hard to obtain status symbols such as Mensa membership.
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.