From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Subject: Re: Non-flaming dialogue wanted
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:07:40 GMT

In article 14456@vela.acs.oakland.edu, atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:

> Mike Steiner writes:
>} If we let anyone join and let peer-pressure and boredom push out those who
>} aren't "our type," *we* would be the ones pushed out--by sheer numbers. 
>
>  I don't see this to be the case at all.  I am part of a student group that
>holds discussions on various topics, goes to musea, "art" films, and other
>activities.  When we go to see and discuss, for example, "Night on Earth," we 
>aren't overwhelmed by a crowd of idiots who want to discuss the film at their
>level.  
>  In reality, people who don't have the ability to appreciate such things 
>simply won't be interested in them.  Crowds of "them" won't show up to ruin 
>your fun because they'll think its extremely boring.  You can get a group of
>intelligent people together to discuss, say, euthanasia without having to
>worry about the people who would rather watch wrestling because those people
>will be watching wrestling.  I see the membership requirements as a way to 
>deal with a non-problem.

Here we have a perception problem.  Mensa members host a large number of different
activities.  We are not primarily a discussion, book, or movie appreciation
society, although we do have those events.  We also have car ralleys, pool
parties, Sunday brunches, chocolate tastings, and many more events.  

I find the interactions I have with people at Mensa events to generally be of
a different caliber than at other similar events.  I attribute this to a couple
things:  the selection for intelligence, a feeling of comraderie, an a feeling
of acceptance within the group.  

>  Even worse, this approach assumes that people are either intelligent or not 
>intelligent, with no middle ground.  I get into great discussions with people 
>who do not qualify for Mensa, but who would certainly appreciate the dialogue 
>and interaction that goes on there.  I don't understand why it is so important 
>to differentiate between "us" and "them."

No, it assumes that there is a range of intelligences.  I get into interesting
discussions with a number of people.  I have no way of telling whether they would
be eligible for membership or not.

Membership has a cutoff level.  One can argue whether it should be higher or lower. 
From my perspective, it seems if it were much higher, it eliminates a large 
portion of the "interesting" population.  Much lower and it fails to concentrate
this portion together.  Eliminating the qualification seems to eliminate the
purpose of the organization: to bring intelligent people together.

One can always invite interesting non-members to Mensa events.  I do frequently.

>
>The Polymath writes:
>
>} 2) I have yet to see any social group in which peer pressure eliminated
>}    anyone who, for one reason or another, didn't seem to get the hint that
>}    there were not many people who particularly enjoyed having them around.
>
>   This is a minor problem--the vast majority of people who couldn't handle
>the level of conversation in Mensa would find it boring.  The only real reason
>someone who wasn't interested in intelligent conversation would want to get 
>into Mensa is for the snob appeal--which would be lost if Mensa didn't claim
>that membership was proof of extreme intelligence.  You're already accepting
>people at the 95% who got lucky--why not take them all?

See above.  There are Mensa members who, for a variety of reasons, are unwelcome.
(One example is a person in our local group who always seems to get into raging 
and vituperative arguments at any event, often with the host, with much of the 
"debate" being insults and personal attacks.)  Peer pressure seems to have little
effect on eliminating undesirables.  I have no belief that a minority (e.g., 2%)
would be able to persuate a majority that they were unwelcome.  Rather, the 
minority would go away, get together, and form their group.  Sort of like Mensa.

>
>Ken writes:
>
>} OK. How do you _objectively_ measure the capacity to hold intelligent 
>} discussion?
>
>  This is a situation where objectivity is useless.  The best way to find out
>if they can have an intelligent conversation is to try it.  If they can talk
>to you intelligently, then they're in.  It isn't objective, but it's more
>accurate than even a perfect measure of intelligence.  IQ measures a lot of
>things, none of which are the ability to socialize intelligently.   

You are right.  But one difference you fail to note is that intelligence tests
are objective.  The only way to evaluate social ability is by interview with
some kind of selection board, which is profoundly subjective.  This begins to 
sound a lot like Pledge Week on campus.  While the stated goal may be to select
for intellectual ability, I fear such a scheme would be used to select for 
appearance, race, religion, wealth, and the like.

> Why not
>let people hang out with you and see if they are able to hack it?  If they
>can't get deal with the situation, they'll leave.

No empirical evidence to show that this is the case.  Much anecdotal evidence
against it.

---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141