From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Jealousy (from the pages of omni....)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:54:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.003559.26163@ncsu.edu> cjdcosta@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER J DCOSTA) writes:
>
>kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi) writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>	Of course, you might want to change the charter and make MENSA
>>	a training centre for those who represent America's best chance
>>	for winning the World Chess Championship, the Nobel prize, the
>>	Tchaikovsky Piano Competition, etc.  I'm afraid your comparison
>>	falls short.
>>
>>		Kumar
>>	
>>ps:	...and if you are resistant to that argument, consider that 
>>	an athlete's speed may be timed accurately to 1/100th of a
>>	second.  How accurately can you measure one's intelligence?
>
>Ahem. All you've done here is prove that Mensa isn't the Santa Monica
>Club. As with your previous post, this is a redundant and rather obvious
>conclusion. This person was only trying to show you how your logic could
>have absurd implications. So did I , in my previous post.

[ Lots of debate omitted regarding elitism and Mensa and comparisons
to athletic prowess, etc.. ]


Chris and Kumar,
	I would add the following:

I've seen bad examples in the past of someone who has more than one
opinion enter a debate without a clear notion of exactly what point
they'd like to make, and keep the "debate" going by shifting between
these points whenever one is refuted.  I'm fairly sure that you (Kumar)
don't want to indulge in that.

Kumar, you have said that Mensa is elitist and have used an "athletic"
analogy.  This is ridiculous, you must admit, since, if anything, any
athletic competition or endeavor in which you are expected to compete
is, by definition, exclusionary.  And the amount of preparation and
training required is irrelevant, because for all the training in the
world, some are able to be champions, or at least excel, and others
will never, ever be able.

If you are trying, however, to debate the tests' ability to measure
intelligence, that has indeed become a tiresome subject refuted time
and again.  The tests have been successful in predicting performance.
As would your stopwatch in previous races predict future success.
And, as with your stopwatch, there is a chance that the future performance
will not match the past, but that is improbable.  Not impossible,
improbable, just as every measurement ever done of anything.  This
is waste of time.

Now, if you claim that you have a definition of "intelligence" that
you like to use, I would consider it much more presumptuous than any
definition that Mensa uses, such as the results of tests, since far
more people use them, and have success with them.

If you claim that Mensa uses this to estimate a person's "value", then
I would claim that that is an assumption on your part.  Just as 
assuming that the postal service judges potential postal employees'
"value" with their qualification test.  The only "value" is in
estimating whether the person should be a part of their organization.
If you wish to estimate a person's "value" to you by your own
personal criteria, that is absolutely your right to do so, but is
extremely presumptuous, and, ironically, far more elitist, to
expect the rest of the world to stop doing their own estimation
because you say so, you must admit.

GMS