Mensa

I scored high enough on an official IQ test (as in, from a clinical psychologist who tested me professionally in person, not some illegitimate online test) to get accepted into Mensa. Should I do it? Some people love it, others claim that it's just a bunch of pretentious cunts playing board games and bragging about how smart they are. What do you think? What have your experiences in Mensa been like?

Being smart autists, I figure that at least some of you might know what Mensa is like. I would appreciate any and all serious insight.

>>86
If you feel the need to ask questions like that, it means you're insecure about "belonging" to something. In that case, I'd say you need to decide for yourself. At the very worst, you joined an organization that you don't want to be a part of.

>>88
The whole book seemed pretentious to me. Once you understand the concepts he's playing with, you're left with 800 pages of some guy droning on about cognitive science. I think a lot of people like it because they read it at a point in their lives where things like the philosophy of mathematics are foreign to them, so they get introduced to it in GEB and have positive memories of the book, even if they didn't understand the author's thesis.

Evidence bears this out, since in the 20th anniversary edition of the book, the author explicitly states that he himself didn't know what the hell the book was about when he wrote it (you can read this part on the Amazon preview), and as a result has been bombarded by fans who thought the book was simply about the three people in the title or about how all of these fields are related (and has the gall to sound annoyed at the people who don't understand what he wanted to say).

The worst part of the book undoubtedly lies in the form of (some of) its fans, who tell anyone who doesn't like the book that they don't "get it" (which is odd, considering that the author himself admits he doesn't "get it"), without giving a definition of what "getting it" means.

My theory is that anyone who writes a book without knowing what point they want to make is arrogant, an idiot, or both. I'm already familiar with the the material he uses as "examples" in the book (math, art, etc.), so coming at the book from that perspective, all I saw was poor writing and a nauseating sense of self-importance. I don't want to waste my time deciphering the rambling screed of blowhard trying to outdo daddy's Nobel Prize.

Obviously, you should read it for yourself and find out what you think of it (and if you need motivation, look back at the 100+ 5-star reviews on Amazon). As they say, YMMV.