From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Jealousy (from the pages of omni....)
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:51:47 GMT
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting

In article Dnv@cs.dal.ca, kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi) writes:
>>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.

I'm pretty thick skinned and I don't get offended easily.

>	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?)

Mensa just qualifies people for membership.  Any inference that you draw and
any reference to their potential (or whatever) is yours and not Mensas.

>
>	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? 

Read my comment more clearly.  You are attributing qualities to each person
based on membership.  This is dehumanizing.  

>
>	As far as suggesting that MENSAns are some sort of monolithic
>	group (set) that lacks potential...these are your words.

Actually, these are your words.  Look at the quote at the top of this posting.
You say non-Mensans have more potential than Mensans.

>	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).  

The IQ of non-Mensans is not bounded?  While the IQ of Mensans is bounded?
To use your own very odd logic, the IQ of both groups is 'bounded' by the
IQ of the highest-scoring member.   If you want to claim that not knowing 
your IQ means that it is unbounded, then you have a problem.  What it is
is unmeasured, not unbounded.

>	
>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)

1)  Your understanding of statistics and probability is weak.
2)  In any finite, orderable set, there is always a highest value.  Therefore,
    there is a most intelligent person.
3)  Mensa never has claimed to have the most intelligent people in the world.
4)  No body cares.


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