Skip to content

Conversation with Paul Cooijmans on the Constitution of the Glia Society: Administrator, Glia Society (9)


Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/03/15


Paul Cooijmans is an Independent Psychometitor and Administrator of the Glia Society, and Administrator of the Giga Society. He discusses: correspondence; introduction to the constitution of the Glia Society; provision of a forum for intelligent persons; the study of high intelligence; Section III Structure of the Glia Society constitution; Section IV Offices of the constitution; tests to candidates; the archives of the Administrator of the Glia Society; members; delegated tasks; offices have been created by the Administrator; Section V Admission; the world population; unsupervised untimed tests; supervised timed group tests; unsupervised tests prohibiting reference aids, unsupervised timed, and self-scored tests; most mainstream tests; the difficulty in discernment of intelligence level; Section VI Finance; Section VII Journal; the society’s admission tests in Thoth; verbatim publication; Section IIX Members; fraudulent scores; wrongly communicating, publishing, or spreading, answers; leaking member communication to non-members; admitting non-members to members’ communication for a; extreme rudeness, harassment, insults, lies, misrepresentation of another member’s character, and similar (mis-)behaviour; the highest number of offences by a single individual; highly unethical, including criminal, behaviour; an intelligence below the level of the Glia Society; revisions; the motivation for the ongoing administration of the Glia Society; the major lessons in administration of the Glia Society; and final thoughts.

Keywords: constitution, Glia Society, I.Q., I.Q. tests, intelligence, Paul Cooijmans.

Conversation with Paul Cooijmans on the Constitution of the Glia Society: Administrator, Glia Society (9)

*Please see the references, footnotes, and citations, after the interview, respectively.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You provide contact information to interested parties:

Paul Cooijmans

De Wolwever 39


THE NETHERLANDS (Cooijmans, n.d.a)

The email is To act as a small quality control to individuals who read this part of the interview on the Glia Society, and who want to send materials to you, what should individuals who hope to send correspondence bear in mind?

Paul Cooijmans[1],[2]*: With regard to Glia Society admission, one should keep in mind that the admission criteria as published online are complete, and that not understanding those – that is, applying without qualifying scores – is not compatible with the required intelligence level and naturally disqualifies the applicant. One should also distinguish an application from an assessment procedure as described on the web location. One can not do both at once!

I would like to utilize this opportunity to express thorough frustration as to the following recurring conversation:

Correspondent: Is the X test accepted for admission to the Glia Society?

Administrator: The list of accepted tests is online and complete, as so clearly stated there.

Correspondent: Yes, but the X test is not on it, hence my question.

Administrator: ????!!!!

I trust every logical thinker will agree that such a correspondent appears not to be at the required intelligence level.

Regarding myself and correspondence, I tend not to respond to anonymous or pseudonymous messages, or to insults and threats. I also prefer to ignore mass mailings that include me without my prior consent. That reminds me of a person who contacted me regarding admission to “your society”, but, after some writing up and down, turned out to have no clue to which society she was applying and what the membership requirement was! She had sent an application to many societies at once, using the blind carbon copy field. When I referred her to the list of accepted tests online (without specifying a society name or uniform resource locator) she had no idea which web site or society it concerned and became furious, apparently for having been caught red-handed doing a mass application, and began to lecture me about kindness and compassion. But that is not how you apply to an I.Q. society, sorry.

Jacobsen: The introduction to the constitution of the Glia Society states, “This document should be seen not as a formal law imposed upon the society, but as describing the actual state of affairs as it has come to be. It is an ongoing process, an attempt to formulate how an I.Q. society is run.” (Cooijmans, n.d.b) What have been the hardest lessons in the construction of the constitution? Those items needing stipulation due to the actual state of affairs of a high-I.Q. society.

Cooijmans: The first thing that occurs to me is that the goal “Provide ways of self-improvement for intelligent individuals, for instance in fields like study, health, and work” is exceptionally hard to meet. Some members may have improved themselves thanks to their own efforts, but to actually provide to others ways of self-improvement that work is so hard that, after decades, I still dare not guarantee that the Glia Society is doing that.

If I consider my own case, the main things that have worked to improve me are (1) running, (2) joining I.Q. societies.

Items that needed stipulation due to the actual state of affairs: The “Other offices” were added because they actually occurred. The remark on children having to qualify by adult norms was added because of questions as to whether childhood age-based scores were accepted. The remark about the pass level occurring at about one in three among high-range scores was added after this had been so reliably for many years (do note that this is not how the requirement is specified; it is just how it happens to be). The remark about admission tests needing to have at least two different item types came after observing that one-sided tests did not tend to produce qualified members. The assessment procedure is mentioned because it had been conceived and useful. The varying size of the journal is a fact that occurred in reality. The stipulated tearing to pieces of failing candidates by a monster that is a mixture of a crocodile, a lion, and a hippopotamus is a not infrequent state of affairs. The grounds for expulsion have mostly occurred in reality.

Jacobsen: The Glia Society name origin has been described before and the description is provided in the constitution, too. Section II Goals of the constitution states:

II Goals

Provide a forum between intelligent individuals;

Do, encourage, and support work and study related to high intelligence;

Provide ways of self-improvement for intelligent individuals, for instance in fields like study, health, and work. (Ibid.)

Has the Glia Society succeeded in provision of a forum for intelligent persons, as the Administrator?

Cooijmans: Yes, for some of the members that seems to have succeeded. It is an ongoing process.

Jacobsen: Has the participation of individuals in the Glia Society assisted in the study of high intelligence and helped individuals self-improve?

Cooijmans: Yes, it has certainly helped the study of high intelligence. I do not know if it has helped individuals self-improve. Maybe a few. I am always hesitant to make such claims; only the person in question can tell. I tend not to trust people like gurus, therapists, or philanthropists who claim to be helping people. Such strikes me as self-gratifying and narcissist.

Jacobsen: Section III Structure of the Glia Society constitution stipulates official tasks are conducted by the Administrator. A successor would be a member of the Glia Society, appointed after the Administrator retires. Why the emphasis on optimization over democratization of the process?

Cooijmans: To protect the original goals of the Glia Society as stated before by me in this interview. Democratization can be dangerous as it opens the door to hostile takeovers.

Jacobsen: Section IV Offices of the constitution states:

IV Offices


Selects admission tests and sets pass levels;

Informs candidates on society and requirements;

Administers tests to candidates without qualifying scores;

Admits qualifiers and registers personalia;

Keeps archives;

Produces and publishes (among members) a journal;

Maintains the society’s web sites;

Delegates any of these tasks to members of sufficient ability when possible and appropriate;

Revises the constitution when needed.

Other offices

Members may hold offices related to any tasks that need to be performed; for instance, administrator of a forum, journal editor, or forum inspector (verifying that the society’s members-only fora indeed house only members). Officers must perform their tasks with dedication, meticulousness, and persistence, which are rare qualities. Officers must be selected with care, as laxity in officers does much damage to a society. (Ibid.)

What is some other information important for society candidates outside of the frequently asked questions for the Glia Society?

Cooijmans: The membership is surprisingly diverse, also in terms of opinions. I see this as a result of a strict admission policy and freedom of speech.

Jacobsen: How do you administer tests to candidates to the Glia Society?

Cooijmans: Through electronic mail and the Internet. In the past I had a few supervised tests that could be taken by visiting me, but almost no one ever did so I ended them. If a test is taken so extremely rarely, it is problematic to maintain it and keep consistency between the far-between test administrations. You have long forgotten how to administer the test by the time the next candidate comes along.

Jacobsen: What is in the archives of the Administrator of the Glia Society now?

Cooijmans: The paper originals of the Thoth issues from the period when there was a paper version. For clarity, these are A4 sheets with two pages per sheet, such that for instance pages 32 and 1 are on one sheet, pages 2 and 31 on the next, and so on. There are a few copies left a of small number of issues. And the electronic archives contain the digital Thoth issues in editable form (so not necessarily in portable document format, which is the read-only format to which it is exported at the very end of the production process) and the member database.

Jacobsen: How many members have been delegated tasks?

Cooijmans: One does not count such things. Probably in the order of ten to twenty.

Jacobsen: How many offices have been created by the Administrator? What ones?

Cooijmans: One does not count such things, one just does them as needed. Forum moderator or administrator, forum inspector, editor of Thoth, ombudsman, prince of peace. Most of those have been fulfilled by more than one person each.

Jacobsen: Section V Admission states:

V Admission

The ideal requirement is to be at or above the level of one in a thousand of the adult population in g (at the high end, that is). This implies that both adults and children are admitted if they qualify; if they score “one in a thousand” by adult (not childhood or otherwise age-based) norms. Acceptable for admission are tests with sufficient degrees of the following:


Hardness — which places the other five statistics in the relevant range (that is, around the 999th millile);




Quality of norms.

Formal criteria for these five independent statistics have not yet been composed.

In the light of the differences in average I.Q. across the nations of the world it is needed to specify the “population” meant above; to remain consistent with the actual admission levels of higher-I.Q. societies of the last several decades of the twentieth century, one must realize it is the population of the developed, Western countries that is relevant. Considering the lower average I.Q.’s in many other countries, this “one in a thousand” is probably around 1 in 30 000 of the world population.

Another way to indicate where the actual admission level lies is to give its position among high-range test candidates, which, according to the Administrator’s most recent data, is about the 667th millile; in other words, the level of one in three.

General guidelines for selecting admission tests

Suitable for admission

Unsupervised untimed tests allowing reference aids;

Supervised individual tests;

Supervised group tests.

Avoided where possible

Supervised timed group tests highly loaded on “speed”, even if administered individually.

Such tests have no validity whatsoever in the high range.

Avoided at all times

Unsupervised tests prohibiting reference aids;

Unsupervised timed tests;

Self-scored tests.

On such tests it is extremely easy to cheat.

Specific high-range tests are the principal tools for member selection. Regular tests used by mainstream psychology are avoided as they mostly lack items that discriminate at high levels and therefore have no validity — that is, no g loading — in the relevant range.

Admission tests should contain at least two different item types (out of verbal, numerical, spatial, logical). Tests containing one item type may be used in combination; the pass level must then be met on at least two different such tests.

Assessment procedure

Given the large and increasing number of tests claiming to measure in the high range, it has become impossible to determine for each test individually whether it is suitable for admission. An assessment procedure that considers the quality of a candidate’s (work, creative) output, whether or not in combination with one or more test scores, is also acceptable to determine if the candidate meets the society’s requirement. (Ibid.)

You have articles describing some of the core mentioned terms, e.g., quality of norms, robustness, reliability, resolution, and validity (Cooijmans, 2008; Cooijmans, n.d.c; Cooijmans, n.d.d; Cooijmans, n.d.e). Why haven’t formal criteria been developed “for these five independent statistics” (Cooijmans, n.d.b)?

Cooijmans: These statistics are partly experimental, and the experiment has not yet advanced to the stage that formal criteria could be based on them.

Jacobsen: How does the 1-in-a-1,000 become 1-in-30,000 when considering the world population?

Cooijmans: Because intelligence is not the same everywhere, and the 1 in 1000 is based on the situation in Western countries where the average I.Q. is around 100. Considering the national average I.Q.’s worldwide as published by Lynn and Vanhanen, the average I.Q. in the world (expressed on a scale where the British average at the time of their first study is set to 100) is about 90 (when weighted by national population sizes) or about 83 (unweighted). So the level of 1 in 1000 by Western norms will be more rare worldwide, probably closer to 4 world standard deviations above the mean than to 3 world standard deviations above the mean (this is complicated somewhat by the fact that the world standard deviation may be a bit larger than the defined 15 points of the I.Q. scale on which the British average is 100, because when you merge groups the combined standard deviation tends to be larger than those of the constituent groups).

It has repeatedly surprised me that so many people find this hard to understand. “But I thought the average I.Q. was always 100?!” is a sometimes heard remark. But of course if you want to compare I.Q.’s of different countries, you do not norm the scale separately for each country, because then the average is the same everywhere (to wit 100) and no comparison is possible. You norm the scale on one population (Britain in the case of Lynn and Vanhanen’s study) and express the other national averages on that same scale, using the same norms.

I guess it is so that many people do not understand the concept of “standard deviation” and therefore do not understand the difference between (1) mean and standard deviation of the I.Q. scale (which are defined, set, decided) and (2) means and standard deviations of actual populations (which are the result of measurement).

Perhaps it is good to relate the following anecdote for further clarification: Once I wrote an article in the Netherlandic Mensa journal in which I explained that I.Q.’s as yielded by most tests are normalized standard scores; that is, that they are really “percentiles in disguise”. The scores of the norming population are initially computed as percentiles (or whichever form of quantiles) and those are then converted to I.Q.’s via the normal distribution, mostly via table lookup. This process is known as “normalization” or “forcing the scores into a normal distribution”. In the next issue, a not-understanding member replied, “That is stupid; suppose that on another planet there live only 1000 beings; they highest I.Q. there could never be more than 147 or so, no matter how smart they are?!” Of course he made the same mistake of comparing I.Q.’s of groups that have been normed on different samples and are therefore not comparable. To compare groups, you have to express the I.Q.’s on the same scale. The highest I.Q. on the other planet, expressed by Earth norms, may as well be 200 (or 20, for that matter).

Another lesson to be learnt from the previous paragraph is that the verb “to normalize” means “to force into a normal distribution” and not “to norm”. This is an error sometimes made by incompetent dilettante test scorers, who may say posh-sounding things like “the test was normalized using scores on other tests”. They mean “normed”, not “normalized”. But that does not sound as impressive, does it?

Jacobsen: Why are unsupervised untimed tests allowing reference aids, supervised individual tests, and supervised group tests, suitable for admission?

Cooijmans: Because on those test formats it is possible to include hard problems and obtain validity in the high range, provided that ample time is allowed on the supervised tests. In practice it is often so that supervised tests lack hard problems, and some of them allow too little time.

Jacobsen: How are supervised timed group tests weighted on speed without validity at the high range?

Cooijmans: Because a speeded test has lower “g” loading, especially in the high range. This relation between speed and “g” loading has been found experimentally; if you allow more time for a test, its “g” loading rises. This is reported on by Arthur Jensen in his magnum opus “The g factor”, one of the more important books in psychometrics. Why is the “g” loading of speeded tests lower especially in the high range? Obviously, scores in the less than high range require fewer correct solutions, and the allowed time may be ample to solve such a lower number of problems. But for the high-range scores, many problems need to be solved, and the time is (purposely) too short for that. This type of test – speeded – tends to consist of easy problems that most persons of above-average intelligence could solve all when given enough time. Therefore, the ranking of candidates you get at the high end of such a test’s score distribution is determined by the speed at which one can solve easy problems. This speed has been found to be correlated with the personality trait of extraversion rather than with “g”, the common factor in mental testing. So technically, the test can give very high scores, but beyond a certain point the correlation with intelligence is lost so that the scores in that range are hollow with regard to “g”. That point is typically about the 99th centile. As an aside, I mention that this technique of test construction also prevents or hides the sex difference that is observed on true high-range tests.

After such an explanation, two things need to be stressed: (1) While test-taking speed is not loaded on “g”, reaction time is, and so are other elementary cognitive tasks. Elementary cognitive tasks are NOT test-taking speed. (2) Highly intelligent people are not necessarily “slow thinkers”; some misunderstand the explanation in the previous paragraph thus. But it is nowhere claimed that the correlation of “g” with test-taking speed is negative! Rather, test-taking speed is something else than “g”, lies outside the cognitive domain. Those high in “g” may be fast test-takers or they may not be fast test-takers. This depends on personality traits other than “g”.

Jacobsen: Why are unsupervised tests prohibiting reference aids, unsupervised timed, and self-scored tests, illegitimate for the purposes of the Glia Society?

Cooijmans: Without supervision, one could use reference aids despite the prohibition (which increases one’s score enormously on tests loaded on vocbulary and knowledge) and report the used time falsely or use more time than allowed. Self-scored tests could be scored falsely.

People have privately admitted such offences to me, but some violently deny it concerns fraud, with notorious false arguments like “everyone does it so the playing field is level”. Once in the Netherlandic Mensa journal, I wrote a satirical article in which I announced that the unmasking and punishment of test frauds was imminent. On the day of publication, one of them called me angrily over the telephone, emphasizing that it was not fraud what he had done, and begging me not to betray him. The idiot even offered to “help” me with certain tests, the answers to which he had received from other dishonest persons and was willing to share with me.

Jacobsen: As you note, most mainstream tests lack validity in the high-range because of the lack of items discriminating at the high-range. Why is mainstream psychology having little focus on the high-range given the lack of test items? They have far more resources than anybody else in the area of intelligence testing.

Cooijmans: I have come to believe that this is to avoid or hide the sex difference in performance on difficult tasks in the plane of mental ability. As an extra bonus to this answer, and, of course, entirely unrelated, I invite the reader to ask oneself why there are separate chess tournaments and championships for women.

Jacobsen: The last portion of the admission’s section describes the difficulty in discernment of intelligence level. What are some signifiers of sufficient quality of creative output in further consideration of an individual candidate to the Glia Society?

Cooijmans: I understand the word “signifiers” as objectively observable features, not as theoretical intrinsic qualities. Such signifiers are the continued production of work and availability of that work, the development of that work over time, the being capable of rational communication and the continuity of that capability, and the being a focal point of attention to others; really every creative person becomes the centre of a “school” or starting point of a trend sooner or later, albeit that in some cases this happens after the death of the creative person.

Negative signifiers are self-promotion and “marketing” of one’s work. Promotion, “marketing”, advertising and the like are only needed for low-quality individuals and low-quality work that no one is in urgent need of, that have no genuine place or niche in the market to begin with.

Jacobsen: Section VI Finance states, “The society does not own money. The Administrator kindly finances his work from private funds. This is the better system because one is more careful with one’s own possessions than with common property.” (Ibid.) This seems fairs. What can be careless use of funds in the instances of common property?

Cooijmans: Unneeded spending, spending more than needed, buying from merchants chosen nepotistically, and using common funds privately, to name a few. These things are so common that they seem almost inevitable, and they are hard to stop because the culprits involved are volunteers that will leave when criticized harshly, defending their wrongs with statements like, “How dare you criticize this volunteer’s work?! I am doing all the work while you do nothing”, and “A prestigious society needs to spend much on its promotion otherwise no one takes it seriously”.

An example of unneeded spending was observed in the 1990s in the Triple Nine Society, where members who had not paid their dues in years were kept on the member list and sent the (paper) journal nevertheless, thus giving the impression of a much larger membership than there in fact was.

Jacobsen: Section VII Journal states:

VII Journal

The journal named “Thoth” is distributed among members six times a year. It is produced at low cost and contains, verbatim, copy by members or others. There is no censorship and the Administrator or Editor makes no alterations or revisions. Copy is reproduced as accurately as possible and not shortened. Sole restriction to this anti-censor policy is that in no case correct answers to the society’s admission tests are published. This paragraph implies that, apart from the restriction, any member at any time has absolute certainty that whatever copy that member submits is published verbatim. This guarantee is exceptionally rare and valuable for a journal, and constitutes a golden opportunity for who can appreciate it. If one does not see that opportunity and grab it with both hands though, one does not deserve it to begin with.

The size of a journal issue may vary, depending on the amount of copy available at the time of production of that issue.

The journal is named after the Egyptian moon god Thoth. Thoth, represented as a scientist and magician, was seen as the inventor of writing and reckoning and creator of languages. Thoth weighed the hearts of the deceased at their judgment to decide whether they would be admitted to the hereafter or, if the test was failed, torn to pieces by a monster that was a mixture of a crocodile, a lion, and a hippopotamus. (Ibid.)

Has anyone been foolish enough to try to publish correct answers to the society’s admission tests in Thoth?

Cooijmans: I do not remember any instance of that, so I think not.

Jacobsen: Why is verbatim publication of one’s copy exceptionally rare in a journal?

Cooijmans: Because editors tend to have an irresistible urge to alter other people’s text, thinking they are improving it. There is not enough respect for the integrity of text, there is no understanding of the true meaning of “copyright”. Perhaps a lesson is in place: Copyright is (1) the right to publish a work and (2) the right to alter a work. (2) is not generally known and understood, possibly because by far most people never experience the hell of having one’s work messed up, simply because by far most people never produce any work of significance that could be messed up in the first place. Copyright has nothing to do with money, but serves only to protect the integrity of work. Altering a work without the author’s permission is copyright violation (in the case that the author is the copyright holder); it is like cutting up the author’s soul with knives. That is the part of copyright that is not sufficiently understood.

To complete the lesson I should add that copyright is a natural right that one obtains through the act of creating a work. Contrary to popular misunderstanding, it is not needed or even possible to go to some institution to “copyright” the work. One has the copyright the moment one has created the work. Exceptions are (A) when the work is created as a paid assignment, in which case the employer has the copyright, and (B) when the copyright is transferred to another person, typically by contract.

Jacobsen: Section IIX Members states:

IIX Members

When joining the society, the candidate receives an I.D. with name, member number, and secret U.R.L. of the members-only web location. Members notify the Administrator of changes of address when needed.

Following incidents involving misbehaviour by members, the following grounds for expulsion have been formulated, with in parentheses the number of offences needed for expulsion:

Fraud with one’s, or anyone’s, qualifying score (1);

Publishing, spreading, or communicating to anyone else than the scorer, answers to admission tests (1);

Leaking between-members communication to non-members without the explicit relevant permission (1);

Admitting non-members to members-only communication fora of the society and neglecting to remove those non-members after discovering or being alerted to this offence (several to 1);

Insults, lies, misrepresentation of another member’s character, extreme rudeness, harassment, and similar behaviour (several to 1);

Highly unethical (including criminal) behaviour outside the Glia Society (several to 1);

Displaying in word or deed that one’s actual intelligence level is well below the level required by the society (several to 1). (Ibid.)

Given the statement about misbehaviour, there have been explicit cases to create many parts of the members section. What was the date of the first fraudulent score for the Glia Society?

Cooijmans: This question assumes that that precise date was recorded somewhere for easy access, but that is not so. It takes searching in archives to uncover such information, and as far as I can find, the first known fraudulent score took place in or before December 1998, and was discovered between August 1999 and March 2000. This is the case mentioned in point 7 of the article “Reasons not to spread test answers” at (do notice there is a spoken version hyper-referred to there).

Jacobsen: How many fraudulent scores have been uncovered and punished to date for the Glia Society?

Cooijmans: Of course, the numerical answer to a question like that does not exist in a readily available form. There is test fraud, there are fraudulent scores, both in and outside the Glia Society, and I do record the names and references to it when known to me, but with exactly those four qualifications (fraudulent scores, uncovered, punished, for the Glia Society) there is not a ready list, and hours of searching would be needed to count exactly those cases. I find two at the moment, among many that do not exactly meet all four qualifications.

Jacobsen: For wrongly communicating, publishing, or spreading, answers to admission tests, how many have been caught and punished?

Cooijmans: I assume this is meant within the Glia Society, although that specification was left out. I count four now. Of course there are also latent cases, where there is no hard proof yet.

Jacobsen: For leaking member communication to non-members without consent, how many have been caught and punished?

Cooijmans: Zero. Those cowards are hard to catch. Private communication from members to non-members leaves no traces.

Jacobsen: For admitting non-members to members’ communication fora and failing to remove a non-member knowing this fact of non-membership, how many have been caught and punished?

Cooijmans: Zero. While this has certainly taken place, it is not appropriate to punish such people as it does not concern deliberate wrongdoing but laxity. A forum moderator or administrator is supposed to consult the member list before admitting an applicant to ensure that only members are admitted. In practice, it has occurred that such officers would not take the trouble of consulting the list and just admitted anyone who applied. Within months, such a forum becomes infested with non-members, some of whom actually believe they have truly joined the Glia Society and are full members! Only when they happen to contact me – “As you know I am a Glia Society member and…” – and I tell them they have never been members, they discover, to their shock, disappointment, and anger, what happened.

Another form of unpunished laxity took place when I appointed a forum inspector well over a decade ago. He agreed to inspect the society’s fora and report any non-members every six months. He did one inspection right away. A few years later I reminded him he had missed several inspections in a row, and he did another one. Then, he did nothing any more and I eventually appointed another inspector, who did do it punctually. You can not punish such people, but this does show how easily the voluntary participation of members in running an I.Q. society can cause damage and undermine the society’s functioning. You need to keep an eye on it and correct things that go wrong.

Jacobsen: How often are extreme rudeness, harassment, insults, lies, misrepresentation of another member’s character, and similar (mis-)behaviour present?

Cooijmans: I must say this is rare now, but more frequent in the past when the only forum was the electronic mail forum. On that medium, discussion escalated often, but premeditated character attacks also certainly took place.

Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, what has been the highest number of offences by a single individual? What offences have been so egregious to only require 1 instance to qualify for expulsion?

Cooijmans: One does not count the exact number of offences by a serious repeater, but there was one member who, one the electronic mail forum, sent almost only non-messages for months on end. Virtually everything he sent was nonsense, spam, generalities, Rorschach-Barnum material, rather than true forum participation.

Offences requiring only one instance for expulsion: Fraud with one’s, or anyone’s, qualifying score; publishing, spreading, or communicating to anyone else than the scorer, answers to admission tests; leaking between-members communication to non-members without the explicit relevant permission.

Jacobsen: For highly unethical, including criminal, behaviour outside of the Glia Society, what are cases of highly unethical behaviour? What have been cases of criminal behaviour if I may ask?

Cooijmans: That is a dangerous question, as some members might object to there being criminals in the society and leave. In the history of the Glia Society, I am aware of only one case of imprisonment of a member, and I believe it had to do with drugs. Possibly there have been more who did not inform me of their crimes.

Jacobsen: What indicates, in word or deed, an intelligence below the level of the Glia Society, even well below the admission requirements of the Glia Society – enough to qualify for expulsion?

Cooijmans: That is an interesting question. I assume it is about behaviours of people who are already members. The repeated submission of extremely badly written articles, often consisting of copied-and-pasted fragments from online news articles, would be an example. Stupid remarks on a forum might be another example: “If you want to lose weight, the last thing you should do is sport, because then you gain muscle mass and muscles are heavier than fat”. Displaying a course sense of humour. Forwarding chain letters or “memes”. Using different names at different times and not understanding that the other person can not know that they are one and the same person on those different occasions. Filling in only one name (first or last name but not both) for the member list, or wanting to be listed as an anonymous member. Not learning from mistakes, not accepting being corrected but persisting in the error. Trying to order tests one has already taken, not remembering one has already taken them or denying one has already taken them, trying to trick the scorer into retests, insulting the scorer when a score is lower than one would like, trying to bribe the scorer to get a higher score. Expressing oneself ungrammatically in one’s native language (“Do you think your better then me?”) Using idioms when communicating with an international community, not realizing that people from other cultures may not know those idioms even though they are highly intelligent.

An example of displaying a course sense of humour, accompanied by an inability to understand more subtle humour, occurred ten years ago when I gave a member, who had previously sent me some incredibly course jokes and cartoons, the honour of being briefly referred to in my novel “Field of eternal integrity”; after seeing his cameo appearance (which was ever so slightly satirical I have to admit) this member told me “I don’t like this”, broke off communication with me, and wrote a few ugly things about me on a social medium.

Jacobsen: How often do revisions take place for the Glia Society constitution?

Cooijmans: Rarely, once in many years.

Jacobsen: What continues to be the motivation for the ongoing administration of the Glia Society?

Cooijmans: The curiosity as to what a group is like that is truly selected for high intelligence, and its usefulness in test development and intelligence research. Also, the mere longevity of the society adds to its value, provided that its quality is retained or improved.

Jacobsen: What have been the major lessons in administration of the Glia Society?

Cooijmans: The improvements of the admission policy (so, knowing how to truly select at the given level), and learning how to deal with misbehavers. The most important lesson is that the better you select, the fewer misbehavers you will get. I am certain that goes for society in general too.

Jacobsen: Any final thoughts based on the interview on the Glia Society, in particular or as a whole?

Cooijmans: There have been many questions, and some overlap, so I may have repeated or even contradicted myself here or there. I made no attempt to be artificially consistent with prior answers as that would be a narcissist thing to do.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Paul.

Cooijmans: Cheers. Interviews are a great way to communicate with the world.


Cooijmans, P. (n.d.e). Quality of Norms. Retrieved from

Cooijmans, P. (n.d.d). Resolution. Retrieved from

Cooijmans, P. (n.d.c). Robustness. Retrieved from

Cooijmans, P. (2008). Robustness, Validity, and Reliability. Retrieved from

Cooijmans, P. (n.d.b). The Glia Society: Constitution. Retrieved from

Cooijmans, P. (n.d.a). The Glia Society Contact information. Retrieved from


[1] Administrator, Giga Society; Administrator, Glia Society.

[2] Individual Publication Date: March 15, 2022:; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2022:

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.


In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at


© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: