From: sat@ailab.ncsu.edu (Scott Andrew Tai)
Subject: Re: T: To All MENSA Members...
Reply-To: tai@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us
Organization: NCSU Artificial Intelligence Systems Laboratory
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:08:57 GMT


In article <3766@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, nick+@pitt.edu (Nick C De Mello) writes:
|>  I admit I'm a little confused.  If I understand right, you do not
|>object to clubs restricted to people of certain, arbitrary, qualities:
|>age, religion, or certain scores on IQ tests - in general.  You object
|>to this criteria in mensa because you believe that it has the potential
|>to be "something great."  Do you mean that it should be above this type
|>of behavior?
|>
|>  What do you think mensa should be?  What "greatness" do you think it
|>has the potential to fullfill?  Why do you think it has that potential? 

     I think there is a major need for some kind of advocacy or activist 
organization supporting intelligence.  Highly intelligent people are a 
tremendous social asset.  From them society gets works of major importance
that benefit all of us.  Yet for years we have been going through 
anti-intellectual phases and anti-science phases.  Textbooks are being
dumbed down and rewritten to accomodate social agendas.  Achievement tests
are being de-emphasized or dropped for the same reasons.  Gifted programs
in many counties are being dropped.  In primary and secondary schools,
classroom groupings based on achievement and ability are being dropped
under the theory that sacrificing the intelligent is fine because it's
not fair that they're smarter.  Society seems to be slipping into an
egalitarian phase and is denying differences exist.  If differences are 
too great to pretend they're not real, then programs to level the 
differences are initiated.  

     The problem with MENSA is the 2% rule, and it should be dropped.

     I have felt for some time that MENSA members can be roughly
categorized into one of two groups.  Group A consists of those people
whose lives are centered around a test score, and joined for the ego
stroking they believe an elite organization can give them. Group B
are those people who joined for more nobler reasons as stated in the
MENSA charter.  The responses I've received were consistent with this
grouping.  The telling point separating the groups is not whether they
agreed with me or not; it's the approach they took when confronted with
an idea challenging and possibly disturbing.

     One group put their fingers in their ears, closed their eyes,
and howled insults and nitpicked trivial details.  The other was
inquisitive, open-minded, and asked questions.  First group offered 
nothing of substance, demanded sources supporting my claims, and gave 
none for theirs.  The second group searched for where the truth was and 
offered fresh points-of-view, in the process causing me to modify some 
of mine.  This division always shows up when MENSA is criticized. 
Group B people ask for more facts, sometimes express their own 
frustration, and are eager for discussions on how to make MENSA better.
Group A people always say it must be due to sour grapes, then when you
point out that you qualify, they then claim MENSA is really nothing
more than a social club.  This last claim of joining for social reasons
has always sounded hollow.  First, any area large enough for a MENSA
chapter will also have any number of other clubs, and any interest
club on an intellectual subject will be overloaded with intelligent
people.  Second, unless one is a gross underachiever, anyone bright
enough to qualify for MENSA will be surrounded by intelligent people
at college or at work. Group A people join for ego reasons and bring
nothing to the organization.

     So what needs to be done?  I think dropping the 2% rule would do 
wonders.  First thing that will happen is Group A people will rant and 
rave for awhile.  They'll kick the walls, cry, and act like their candy 
is being taken away, which, in a sense, I guess it is, and some may quit.
Their loss will be more than compensated by gains from future Group B 
people from the the 99.8+% of highly intelligent people not now members.
When it is discovered the 2% rule is gone, and the lure for Group A 
people is gone, and that MENSA is now living up to its full charter, 
MENSA's appeal will broaden enormously.  The quality of the people won't
suffer, and may even go up, on average.  Members will now be active and 
motivated, and the attitude towards MENSA by even non-members will 
become one of respect towards an organization fulfilling a goal 
important to society.

     Can this happen?  Don't know.  Can Group A people grow and become
Group B people?  If not, does Group A outnumber Group B?  Will Group A 
resist dropping the 2% rule?   The net reaches every branch of MENSA, 
so this is a call for someone in every branch to start discussing 
repeal.  I hope it can be done.



-- Scott Tai - AI Lab
   tai@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us



Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa