A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Piloting is the second most dangerous occupation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 16th 07, 06:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default Piloting is the second most dangerous occupation

Mxsmanic wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip writes:


Why, don't they accept the bankrupt?


Doesn't answer the question asked.

Because (1) people who know the organization well know how dysfunctional some
of its members are, and that they might not make good team players; and (2)
people who aren't Mensa-qualified themselves might resent the mention on a
resume.


1) In some jobs the ability to be autonomous is of great value, in
most jobs intelligence is of great value.

2) An employer that only hires people lesser qualified than himself is
an idiot.

This is why many of the club's members do _not_ mention it on a resume,
although it's quite a topic of debate.


Sour grapes.

A Mensa member who's a student might not want to mention it on a resume
for a summer job flipping burgers.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #4  
Old August 17th 07, 03:30 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Doug Semler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default Piloting is the second most dangerous occupation

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:


yes, yet another piggyback

1) In some jobs the ability to be autonomous is of great value, in
most jobs intelligence is of great value.


Intelligence is useful in almost any job and is a valuable predictor
of success in most jobs. However, joining a social club based on IQ
says other things about a person that are not necessarily positive.
And as I've said, anyone who has a good knowledge of Mensa might think
twice about hiring someone in the club.


How the **** would you demonstrate that you have the "valuable predictor" of
intelligence without a group, such as Mensa, that filters applicants based
on intelligence, dip****? And don't tell me "standardized tests." I've
interviewed too many dumb****s that couldn't tell me the difference between
a pointer and a reference even though they had a "computer science' degree.

Like I said. The *ONLY* qualifier of membership in Mensa is a demonstration
of the upper 2 percentile. Nothing more, nothing less. (well, that and the
ability to pay dues g). Your statement is just a giant non sequitor,
obviously caused by "sour grapes".

--
Doug Semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

  #5  
Old August 17th 07, 08:42 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default Piloting is the second most dangerous occupation

Doug Semler writes:

How the **** would you demonstrate that you have the "valuable predictor" of
intelligence without a group, such as Mensa, that filters applicants based
on intelligence, dip****?


An IQ test would suffice. However, intelligence is usually fairly obvious.

And don't tell me "standardized tests." I've
interviewed too many dumb****s that couldn't tell me the difference between
a pointer and a reference even though they had a "computer science' degree.


Given that Mensa requires results from a standardized test to qualify for
membership, I find your comment rather odd.

Like I said. The *ONLY* qualifier of membership in Mensa is a demonstration
of the upper 2 percentile. Nothing more, nothing less.


Yes, and Mensa has a list of standardized tests, just like the ones you
disdain, that it will accept as proof of being in the upper two percent.
  #6  
Old August 17th 07, 11:58 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,851
Default Piloting is the second most dangerous occupation

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Doug Semler writes:

How the **** would you demonstrate that you have the "valuable
predictor" of intelligence without a group, such as Mensa, that
filters applicants based on intelligence, dip****?


An IQ test would suffice. However, intelligence is usually fairly
obvious.


And yet, even people of moderate intelligence can understand bernoulli



Bertie
  #7  
Old August 17th 07, 01:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,851
Default Piloting is the second most dangerous occupation

Martin wrote in
:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:58:02 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote in
m:

Doug Semler writes:

How the **** would you demonstrate that you have the "valuable
predictor" of intelligence without a group, such as Mensa, that
filters applicants based on intelligence, dip****?

An IQ test would suffice. However, intelligence is usually fairly
obvious.


And yet, even people of moderate intelligence can understand bernoulli


The average IQ of US enlisted men tested during WW1 was that of a12
year old.


IQ isn't really age related. though it is true that capacity increases with
age, the measurement is usually like/like otherwise it's kind of pointless.
So it would be fairer to say that they had a sub-normal IQ of say ,less
than 85 than to say they had the IQ of a 12 year old.
It'd be a bit like comparing the horsepower of a modern airplane to the
horsepower of a airplane from 75 years ago. In general, airplanes of 75
years ago had smaller engines, but you could b talking about a mustang.
IOW, you're not neccesarily comparing like with like.
  #8  
Old August 17th 07, 04:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default Piloting is the second most dangerous occupation

Martin writes:

The average IQ of US enlisted men tested during WW1 was that of a12 year old.


IQ does not vary with age, so "the IQ of a twelve-year-old" has no meaning.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics Kingfish Piloting 192 June 19th 06 07:06 PM
reporting dangerous aircraft [email protected] General Aviation 4 October 20th 05 09:15 AM
Okay, so maybe flying *is* dangerous... Jay Honeck Piloting 51 August 31st 05 03:02 AM
Dangerous Stuff [email protected] Rotorcraft 21 July 16th 05 05:55 PM
Flying - third most dangerous occupation David CL Francis Piloting 16 October 22nd 03 02:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.