From: kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi)
Subject: Re: Jealousy (from the pages of omni....)
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:44:31 GMT

>From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
>In article FGq@cs.dal.ca, kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi) writes:
>>
>>     Mensans are no more gifted than their 'highest value' member, 
>>     whereas non-Mensans have the potential to be more.  Which subset
>>     would you rather belong to?  
>When you refer to people as members of sets you dehumanize them and 
>diminish them in every way.  You set up a false comparison that Mensans
>are some sort of monolithic group that lacks potential, compared to 
>non-Mensans.  

	If you are eager to get offended, I am eager to apologize.
	However, it is not I who seeks to classify.  I'm only 
	interpretting that which is already classified, ie. by 
	MENSA's own pseudo-quantification of human beings.   
	(what is it...the top 2% of test-taking individuals or 
	 something?)

	If the charter of MENSA is not an attempt to find a 
	subset in the universal set of human beings, then what 
	is it?  Am I dehumanizing them or are they dehumanizing
	me by insisting I pass some artifically-determined 
	criteria for membership? 

	As far as suggesting that MENSAns are some sort of monolithic
	group (set) that lacks potential...these are your words.
	All I said was the intelligence of MENSAns is upper-bounded
	by the intelligence of their highest-scoring member 
	(IQ is implied here since this seems to be the most frequent
	barometer of reference);  whereas an upper bound does not exist
	for non-MENSAns (possibly because we recognize this to be an
	absurd injunction against the mind's free expansion).  

	Of course, the MENSAn who owns the upper limit may be FAR
	above non-MENSAns in terms of some 'definable intelligence'
	(if such a thing exists), but the probability of this is 
	minimal as illustrated by the following arithmetic:


	eg.  ...I think it was pointed out earlier there are some
		100,000 members of MENSA in the US.
	     ...By MENSA's own requirements, 2% of test-takers 
	   	are 'acceptable'
	     ...2% of the US population is roughly 5.5 megs of 
		people
	     ...therefore, 0.1 megs of MENSAns and 5.5 megs of
	  	non-MENSAns meet or could meet the qualifications
		required by MENSA.
	
Conclusion:  The probability that the most intelligent
	     human being is NOT a member of MENSA is far
	     greater than the probability he/she is.
	     (of course, only if such a person exists at all)
		


>In either group, the people are individuals, and as such, have their own
>abilities and potential, realized or not.  

	I agree whole-heartedly with you, here.

>I find this to be one of the most demeaning of reverse-elitist statements.

	Have a beer and read my post again with less eagerness.   :)

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



	Kumar
-- 
                                ********************************************
   Kumar Yelubandi               **  A wise man learns more from a fool  **
   (good wines = good times!)    **  than vice versa...or so they say    **
   ...in the year 2525...        **           -  Drink up -              **