Much depends on the audience one is signalling to.
Join organizations like Mensa
To stupid or average people, this is a signal of intelligence. To other intelligent people, my impression is that Mensa membership mostly distinguishes the subset of “intelligent and pompous about it” from the larger set of “intelligent people”.
Associate yourself with games and activities that are usually clustered with intelligence, e.g. chess, Go, etc.
Again this works as a signal to people who are at a remove from these activities, because the average player is smarter than the average human. People who themselves actually play, however, will have encountered many people who happen to be good at certain specific things that lend themselves to abstract strategy games, but are otherwise rather dim.
Speak eloquently, use non-standard cached thoughts where appropriate; be contrarian (but not too much)
Agree with this one. It’s especially useful because it has the opposite sorting effect of the previous two. Other intelligent people will pick up on it as a sign of intelligence. Conspicuously unintelligent people will fail to get it.
Learn other languages—doing so not only makes you more employable, it can be a big status boost
This one seems like it might vary by geography. It’s a lot less of a distinction for a European than an American. In the US, the status signal from “speaks English and Spanish” is different from the status signal from “speaks English and some language other than Spanish”.
To other intelligent people, my impression is that Mensa membership mostly distinguishes the subset of “intelligent and pompous about it” from the larger set of “intelligent people”.
My experience seems to support this. The desire to signal intelligence is often so strong that it eliminates much of the benefits gained from high intelligence. It is almost impossible to have a serious discussion about something, because people habitually disagree just to signal higher intelligence, and immediately jump to topics that are better for signalling. Rationality and mathematics are boring, conspiracy theories are welcome. And of course, Einstein was wrong; an extraordinarily intelligent person can see obvious flaws in theory of relativity, even if they don’t know anything about physics.
Mensa membership will not impress people who want to become stronger and have some experience with Mensa. Many interesting people make the Mensa entry test, come to the first Mensa meeting… and then run away.
My experience with Mensa was similar to yours. I joined, read a couple issues of their magazine without having time to go to a meeting, and realized that if the meetings were like the magazine they weren’t worth the time. There was far less original thought in Mensa then I had expected.
I joined, read a couple issues of their magazine without having time to go to a meeting, and realized that if the meetings were like the magazine they weren’t worth the time. There was far less original thought in Mensa then I had expected.
Saying this about Mensa is a much better way to signal intelligence to other intelligent people than actually being a Mensa member.
Well, it’s worth being a little careful here. Saying dismissive things about an outgroup is an effective way to present myself as a higher-status member of the ingroup; that works as well for “us intelligent people” and “those Mensa dweebs” as any other ingroup/outgroup pairing. Which makes it hard to tell whether I’m really signalling intelligence at all.
Right now my question is: Is abandoning Mensa the most useful thing, or can it be used to increase rationality somehow?
Seems to me that the selection process in Mensa has two steps. First, one must decide to make a Mensa entry test. Second, one must decide to be a Mensa member, despite seeing that Mensa is only good for signalling—this is sometimes not so obvious to a non-Member. For example when I was 15, I imagined that Mensa would be something like… I guess like I now imagine the LW meetups. I expected there people who are trying to win, not only to signal intelligence to other members.
So I conclude that people who pass the first filter are better material than people who pass both filters. A good strategy could be this: Start a local rationalist group. Become a member of Mensa, so you know when Mensa does tests. Prepare a flyer describing your rationalist group and give it to everyone that completes the Mensa test—they will probably come to the first following Mensa meeting, but many of them will not appear again.
This is what I want to do, when I overcome my laziness. Also I will give a talk in Mensa about rationality and LW, though (judging by reactions on our facebook group) most members will not be really interested.
Much depends on the audience one is signalling to.
To stupid or average people, this is a signal of intelligence. To other intelligent people, my impression is that Mensa membership mostly distinguishes the subset of “intelligent and pompous about it” from the larger set of “intelligent people”.
Again this works as a signal to people who are at a remove from these activities, because the average player is smarter than the average human. People who themselves actually play, however, will have encountered many people who happen to be good at certain specific things that lend themselves to abstract strategy games, but are otherwise rather dim.
Agree with this one. It’s especially useful because it has the opposite sorting effect of the previous two. Other intelligent people will pick up on it as a sign of intelligence. Conspicuously unintelligent people will fail to get it.
This one seems like it might vary by geography. It’s a lot less of a distinction for a European than an American. In the US, the status signal from “speaks English and Spanish” is different from the status signal from “speaks English and some language other than Spanish”.
My experience seems to support this. The desire to signal intelligence is often so strong that it eliminates much of the benefits gained from high intelligence. It is almost impossible to have a serious discussion about something, because people habitually disagree just to signal higher intelligence, and immediately jump to topics that are better for signalling. Rationality and mathematics are boring, conspiracy theories are welcome. And of course, Einstein was wrong; an extraordinarily intelligent person can see obvious flaws in theory of relativity, even if they don’t know anything about physics.
Mensa membership will not impress people who want to become stronger and have some experience with Mensa. Many interesting people make the Mensa entry test, come to the first Mensa meeting… and then run away.
My experience with Mensa was similar to yours. I joined, read a couple issues of their magazine without having time to go to a meeting, and realized that if the meetings were like the magazine they weren’t worth the time. There was far less original thought in Mensa then I had expected.
Saying this about Mensa is a much better way to signal intelligence to other intelligent people than actually being a Mensa member.
Well, it’s worth being a little careful here. Saying dismissive things about an outgroup is an effective way to present myself as a higher-status member of the ingroup; that works as well for “us intelligent people” and “those Mensa dweebs” as any other ingroup/outgroup pairing. Which makes it hard to tell whether I’m really signalling intelligence at all.
Yes, and I knew that when I said it. But it’s also true.
Right now my question is: Is abandoning Mensa the most useful thing, or can it be used to increase rationality somehow?
Seems to me that the selection process in Mensa has two steps. First, one must decide to make a Mensa entry test. Second, one must decide to be a Mensa member, despite seeing that Mensa is only good for signalling—this is sometimes not so obvious to a non-Member. For example when I was 15, I imagined that Mensa would be something like… I guess like I now imagine the LW meetups. I expected there people who are trying to win, not only to signal intelligence to other members.
So I conclude that people who pass the first filter are better material than people who pass both filters. A good strategy could be this: Start a local rationalist group. Become a member of Mensa, so you know when Mensa does tests. Prepare a flyer describing your rationalist group and give it to everyone that completes the Mensa test—they will probably come to the first following Mensa meeting, but many of them will not appear again.
This is what I want to do, when I overcome my laziness. Also I will give a talk in Mensa about rationality and LW, though (judging by reactions on our facebook group) most members will not be really interested.