I’ve been a member of Mensa now for about two years, both Mensa NL and British Mensa. That’s not a very long time, nor have I been a particularly active member, so you can take what I have to say about Mensa as seriously as you’re inclined to.

Mensa, in case you weren’t aware of this organisation - which is entirely plausible so don’t feel bad about it - is the self-described ‘High IQ Society’. There is only one prerequisite for membership in Mensa: your IQ has to fall in the top 2% of the world’s population.

This effectively means one in fifty people can become Mensa members. Not many actually do become members. In a country such as the Netherlands, with 16 million inhabitants, the potential membership number of Mensa is over 300,000. Last time I checked Mensa NL boasts only around 6,000 members.

I joined Mensa for a purely egotistic reason: I wanted to know if I was really as smart as I thought I was. The answer was ambiguous. Yes I passed the Mensa test and can call myself a ‘high IQ person’, but the margin was narrow and I barely made the cut.

Of course I had preconceived notions about Mensa before I signed up to do the test. I bought in to Mensa’s promotional slogans and envisioned it as a society of intellectuals sharing and debating ideas and coming up with notions for the betterment of all mankind.

This was, after all, the concept on which the society was founded.

It didn’t quite turn out that way. The first thing I noticed when I joined Mensa, and orientated myself on its online discussion forums, was that many Mensa members perceived themselves as victims.

Apparently these high IQ people felt persecuted in some way. Misunderstood from a young age onwards, many Mensans saw themselves as left out of ‘normal’ society, unable to connect with their peers and struggling to conform to society’s norms. They felt themselves as being ‘different’ and often bullied because of that.

Now I’ve seen this type of self-victimisation too often to simply accept it at face value. Everyone from teenagers to Christians, from civil servants to top-level executives, are eagerly casting themselves in the roles of victims.

This is readily amplified by humanity’s innate tribal attitudes (’us’ against ‘them’) and you realise how easily people form social groups centred around (often vaguely defined) characteristics that help separate them, in their own perception, from the ‘rest of the world’.

It was disappointing to see this self-victimisation and tribalism in Mensa. I thought that as a consequence of a high IQ, Mensans would be less likely to succumb to such base urges and dangerous social patterns.

Unfortunately, it quickly became apparent that Mensans aren’t at all different from the masses of humanity - aside from that high IQ of course.

That high IQ is actually part of the problem. You see, I believe it serves as a shield for people’s convictions, a vindication for their beliefs no matter how strange and deluded.

For example, I was appalled at how many Mensans are in to what we collectively term ‘New Age’ spirituality. From astrologers to energy healers, from psychics to homeopaths, Mensa boasts a frightening abundance of people who have thrown every last remnant of rationality and common sense overboard and have committed themselves entirely to plainly ridiculous ideas.

Not only that, I got the distinct impression that these people felt that their membership of Mensa - their high IQ - was a vindication of their beliefs. “I’m smart,” they seem to argue, “so what I believe is right.”

This extends all across the spectrum of beliefs, from spirituality to ideologies and political convictions. Climate change deniers on the Mensa forums are as ferociously delusional as anywhere I’ve seen, as are blatant Islamophobic racists (more commonly referred to as PVV/BNP voters). And they see their high IQ as validation, a protective shield that allows them to ignore or discard any criticism.

Rational thought and skepticism (real skepticism - i.e. not taking any proclamation at face value), which I’ve always associated with intelligence, is no more common on Mensa’s discussion forums than it is on the Daily Mail’s comment section.

So I’m fairly disillusioned. I thought Mensa would bring me great joy, that membership of this high IQ society would help me grow as a person and enlighten me.

Unfortunately Mensa does no such thing. If anything it allows its members to dig themselves deeper in to their own personal convictions, warding off any challenge with the protective blanket of a high IQ.

I’d renounce my Mensa membership today, if only it didn’t look so damn good on my CV….

I enjoy reading books. I buy new books nearly every week, and at any given moment I have anywhere up to five different books on my bedside locker in various stages of reading.

I have a preference for certain types of books. Science fiction, specifically. One of my favourite SF authors has always been Dan Simmons. His 4-part Hyperion saga is one of the finest works of SF to date.

Recently I picked up a copy of the 20th anniversary edition of Carrion Comfort, Dan Simmons’ horror masterpiece about mind vampires. Yet after reading the new introduction Simmons wrote for it, I’m loathe to continue reading it.

You see, the introduction reminded me of the fact that Mr Simmons is actually not a particularly nice man. For starters in the introduction Simmons is guilty of a certain type of barely veiled chest-thumping that doesn’t sit well with me. I’m no fan of false modesty, but some of the phrasings in that introduction felt a little too much like arrogance and conceit.

Additionally, it reminded me of why I stopped visiting his official website years ago. One glance at the forum’s “Hot Button” category quickly reveals a certain type of right-wing nutcasery usually associated with the worst excesses of Fox News, ranging from revisionist Iraq-invasion apologetics to climate change denialism and raving anti-socialised healthcare madness.

Mr Simmons himself is an eager participant in this orgy of Glenn Beck-style paranoia and douchebaggery, especially when it comes to the topic of Islam. He’s the exact opposite of anti-Semitic - he’s plainly Islamophobic.

Now I have my own issues with Islam, primarily on civil liberties, women’s rights, and freedom of speech. But the vileness of the particular brand of Islamophobia rampant on those dansimmons.com forums is nauseating to behold, as it’s rooted purely in ignorance and hatred.

So my challenge now lies in separating the books from the author. So far I’ve received great satisfaction from reading Dan Simmons’ books, but I can’t deny that his political opinions are what I’d consider horrendously hateful and misinformed. I’m afraid my continued enjoyment of his works relies on my ability to forget about the author when I’m reading the book.

Remember about a year ago when I declared my support for Geert Wilders?

I still stand by most of what I said then - free speech is under threat and we need to oppose censorship in all its forms.

But I will not be voting for the party of Mr. Wilders, the PVV. You see, I’ve read their election programme, their ‘manifesto’ if you will.

And it’s stuffed full of rather, well, silly ideas. No, scratch that, ’silly’ doesn’t quite cover it. It’s stuffed full of plain stupid ideas.

Some of their ideas are even downright dangerous, direct threats to the freedom of Dutch citizens (which is ironic for a movement that calls itself the Freedom Party), such as preventative personal inspections and ethnic registrations.

And some of their ideas I just principally oppose, such as the PVV’s intention to repeal the smoking ban, their general anti-EU attitude, and their support of Christian and Jewish education - but not Islamic education. Is that distinction even legal? If you allow some religions but not others, isn’t that a classic example of religious discrimination - something that is outlawed in our constitution?

The PVV doesn’t seem to be in favour of free speech either, which is doubly ironic. They want to severely cut back spending on state media (the only source of genuinely independent news without any commercial incentives to bias their reporting). Additionally the PVV seems to think that everyone is not equal. If you’re white and speak Dutch you’re somehow a better person. And that, simply stated, is fucking bullshit.

I know what you’re thinking: “Barry, you should have known that was coming!” Yes, I should have. I was blinded by my own ferocious opinions on free speech, and I thought the PVV were fighting the good fight.

But they’re not. They’re probably the most anti-free-speech party in the whole country. They’re anti-freedom and anti-equality. They are, as I now realise, a truly dangerous political movement.

I was wrong. Fortunately I realised this before the election in June. Looks like it’s going to be another left-wing vote for me after all.

P.S. Before you vote, read the election programmes of the parties you’re considering. Please. Understand what you’re voting for. There’s no excuse for ignorance.

I’m not a fan of terrorism. That may sound like a blatantly obvious thing to say, but did you know that terrorism is actually a fairly effective method of achieving a specific goal?

Terrorism gathers mass media attention, highlights the struggle the terrorists are engaged in, and helps recruit new members to the terrorists’ cause.

In Northern Ireland terrorism has succeeded in giving nationalist republicans power in the local government.

Palestinian terrorism has helped paint Israel as a villain and brought impulses to the Middle Eastern peace process.

And now Muslim terrorism seems geared towards accomplishing its own goals: a withdrawal of Western influence in the Middle East.

Counter-terrorism, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to work that well. Decades of counter-terrorist actions from the Israeli Mossad hasn’t lead to a decline in Palestinian terrorism. Only when the Palestine leadership was engaged in peace talks did terrorism decrease.

The same in Northern Ireland: the bombs only stopped going off when IRA representatives were brought to the table for negotiations. (Though there are still plenty of disgruntled IRA-offshoots, one of which recently detonated a bomb about half a mile from where I live.)

Muslim fundamentalist terrorism isn’t declining either. There have been several high profile attacks since 9/11, and the West seems to exist in a perpetual state of fear.

Robert Wright argues in his opinion piece for the New York Times, The Price of Assassination, that counter-terrorist assassinations may actually have the exact opposite effect:

“[Jenna Jordan of the University of Chicago] studied 298 attempts, from 1945 through 2004, to weaken or eliminate terrorist groups through ‘leadership decapitation’ — eliminating people in senior positions.

Her work suggests that decapitation doesn’t lower the life expectancy of the decapitated groups — and, if anything, may have the opposite effect.”

Don’t get me wrong, counter-terrorism is absolutely vital in preventing terrorist attacks. We need our intelligence agencies to go out there to find out what terrorists are planning, and stop them from executing their plans.

But that’s where the mandate of counter-terrorism should end. Preventitive assassination, for all its Hollywood-boosted hype, is not a successful counter-terrorist strategy.

New research published today suggest there may be a link between UK news consumption and IQ test scores.

The research, conducted by Emeritus Professor Ian Connell of the Francis Anthony Institute of Liverpool, has revealed that people who regularly read tabloid publications such as the Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Star, and Daily Mail, are much more likely to achieve scores below 100 on official IQ tests.

The study was performed on a group of 150 volunteers from across the United Kingdom. Each subject was administered an IQ test at the start of the study, then made to read the same national newspaper publication every day for a week, after which the IQ test was administered again.

The results showed that readers of ‘tabloid’ papers found their IQ scores dropped dramatically after a week of exposure to these news sources. Researchers also made note of a number of side effects in this group of subjects, such as a greater tendency to wear pyjamas during the day and increased viewing of commercial TV reality shows.

Readers of mainstream ‘quality’ papers such as the Times, the Telegraph, and the Guardian, were found to have no significant statistical change in their IQ scores before and after their exposure to their selected newspaper. In some cases however readers of the Telegraph started raving uncontrollably about ‘climate change conspiracies’ and Guardian readers tended to develop a strong preference for the colour red.

Participants of the study that were made to read the Independent showed a marginal but ’statistically significant’ increase in IQ test results, as well as a propensity to speak whole sentences in Russian. The researchers however referred to this test group as ‘an anomaly’.

Commenting on the study, Emeritus Professor Ian Connell of the Francis Anthony Institute of Liverpool said that this research “may have exposed some alarming side-effects of the choices made by the public in their consumption of news content.”

Referring to similar research performed by the Delft University of Medical Branches, which revealed a similar effect of lowered IQ scores for readers of the Telegraaf newspaper in the Netherlands, professor Connell added that it was “encouraging to see other researchers take the effects of news consumption on human intellect more seriously.”

“However,” he added, “correlation does not necessarily indicate causation. More research is required.”

…according to Charlie Brooker, is newspapers:

“In its purest form, a newspaper consists of a collection of facts which, in controlled circumstances, can actively improve knowledge. Unfortunately, facts are expensive, so to save costs and drive up sales, unscrupulous dealers often “cut” the basic contents with cheaper material, such as wild opinion, bullshit, empty hysteria, reheated press releases, advertorial padding and photographs of Lady Gaga with her bum hanging out. The hapless user has little or no concept of the toxicity of the end product: they digest the contents in good faith, only to pay the price later when they find themselves raging incoherently in pubs, or – increasingly – on internet messageboards.”

After having made the inexcusable mistake of glancing through copies of the Mail, Sun, and Mirror lying around here at the office, I can only conclude that Charlie is, of course, entirely correct.

Newspapers can kill your intellect and ravage your critical thinking skills. Beware what you read.

Now that the Dutch cabinet has fallen and new elections are on the horizon, Dutch digital rights organisation Bits of Freedom has started a Digital Rights 2010 campaign to create awareness among political parties of the issues of internet freedoms.

As any regular reader of this blog knows I’m a fierce advocate of digital freedom, firmly believing in the ideal of an open, free, and unregulated Internet.

Nefarious closed-door treaties like ACTA are threatening to destroy everything that made the Internet so successful.

Now more than ever we need political strength and vision to oppose corporate forces. Media corporations, focused single-mindedly on profit and profit alone, will always choose greed over freedom, lawsuits over expression, and censorship over innovation.

So I would urge you all to support Bits of Freedom. Put the banner on your site, spread the word via Twitter/Hyves/Facebook, and spam your political party of choice with questions about their stance on digital rights.

The next Dutch government may last the full 4 years - an eternity on the Internet. If we get it wrong this time, we might have missed the opportunity entirely. In 4 years’ time the corporate lobbyists may have succeeded in pushing their greed-inspired agenda, and the open & innovative nature of the Internet may be destroyed for good.

But only if we let them.

Once more I am ashamed to be Dutch.

The Dutch cabinet has fallen over the Iraq issue. The left-wing PVDA has chosen the fleeting comfort of public opinion and opposes an extended mission for Dutch troops in Afghanistan.

The result is that at the end of the current mission in August all Dutch troops will withdraw from the Uruzgan province.

This is a Very Bad Thing. I could try to explain why, but this NY Times opinion piece does a much better job. An excerpt:

“The war in Afghanistan is not just about America’s security. It, too, is about denying sanctuaries to Al Qaeda, which has also carried out deadly terrorist attacks in Europe. NATO is stronger when it stands together. The Netherlands weakens itself and all of its allies by choosing to stand alone.”

The irony is that the PVV, the party of Geert Wilders, also opposes the Dutch presence in Afghanistan. This is stupendously ignorant of them.

Wilders keeps on pointing out the dangers of Islamic extremism in the Netherlands, but utterly fails to realize that this is exactly why we need to oppose Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too, Geert. The success of our struggle for western values over Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t end at the Dutch borders. You either get on that train all the way, or not at all.

In Afghanistan we’re fighting for much more than our own safety. Our withdrawal from that fight makes us nothing short of spineless ignorant cowards.

We should all be ashamed. I certainly am.

If you want to know why homeopathy doesn’t work - cannot work, ever, except as a placebo - let me try to explain the concept of homeopathy to you:

Homeopathy, you see, is based on dilution. You take an ingredient believed to be a remedy for an ailment, and then you add water until there are 99 parts water and 1 part remedy. You end up with what homeopaths call a 1C dilution - 99% water, 1% original remedy.

You then take this 1C dilution and repeat the process - you add 99 parts water. That’s a 2C dilution. It means the original active ingredient is now 99.99% water, 0.01% remedy.

You take this 2C solution and repeat the process again, and again, and again. The average homeopathic remedy has a dilution of 30C, meaning that the original active remedy has been diluted with 99% water thirty times.

Homeopaths believe that the more you dilute a substance, the more powerful it becomes. Which seems pretty weird, as a 30C dilution doesn’t contain a single molecule of the original active remedy.

To get a grasp on the mind-boggling numbers involved, read this post on the Times Online blog. A quote:

“To put homeopathy in a medicinal context, if you wanted to consume a normal 500mg paracetamol dose you would need ten million billion homeopathic pills. Where each pill is the same mass as the Milky Way galaxy. There is actually not enough matter in the entire known Universe to make the homeopathic equivalent of a single paracetamol pill.” [Emphasis added]

Homeopaths who understand their craft’s insane underlying assumption, claim that water somehow ‘remembers’ the healing properties of the original remedy.

That sounds like a nice, New Age-ey load of crap. Literally, because all that water has somehow ‘forgotten’ the properties of all the humongous loads of shit (feces, urine, chemicals, you name it) that has floated in it at one time or another, and only ‘remembers’ that infinitely tiny amount of remedy it may have come in to contact with.

If that sounds stupid to you, you’re right. It is stupid. Homeopathy is fucking ridiculous.

Think of it next time you are tempted to buy some homeopathic ‘remedy’. You’re paying good money for water. Just water. Or, more accurately, sugar that has been soaked in water, and then stamped into pills.

Homeopaths are either total imbeciles, or the worst kind of thieves - thieves that prey on the weak and helpless.

(Via @NewHumanist)

Christopher Hitchens is one of my heroes. He writes and edits superb books, he verbally destroys stupid people with quintessential Britishness, he loves to drink, and he has quirky hair.

Now we can add another reason to that list: He speaks truth about airplane security (one of my pet peeves). An excerpt:

“For many years after the explosion of the TWA plane over Long Island (a disaster that was later found to have nothing at all to do with international religious nihilism), you could not board an aircraft without being asked whether you had packed your own bags and had them under your control at all times. These two questions are the very ones to which a would-be hijacker or bomber would honestly and logically have to answer “yes.” But answering “yes” to both was a condition of being allowed on the plane! Eventually, that heroic piece of stupidity was dropped as well. But now fresh idiocies are in store. Nothing in your lap during final approach. Do you feel safer? If you were a suicide-killer, would you feel thwarted or deterred?”

Read the full thing here: The truth about airplane security measures (Slate.com)

(Via Unreasonable Faith)