Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadre.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!idis!cadre!geb
From: geb@cadre.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: Mensa and elitism
Message-ID: <123@cadre.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Dec-84 15:51:51 EST
Article-I.D.: cadre.123
Posted: Fri Dec 28 15:51:51 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Dec-84 02:03:04 EST
References: <166@ttidcc.UUCP> <722@ames.UUCP>, <1006@opus.UUCP>
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pgh.
Lines: 21

> Measuring a person by accomplishments can be every bit as empty as
> measuring by (apparent) innate ability.  What constitutes a "meaningful"
> accomplishment, anyway?

Well, how about winning a Nobel prize?  Establishing a billion dollar
corporation?  Inventing a computer in your garage that mushrooms
into a Forture 500 company?  Writing a best-seller?  

That isn't to say a person who does these things is BETTER or smarter than
other people, but I suspect it's a little more than just
being lucky most of the time.  IQ tests attempt to measure
POTENTIAL, which seems useless without accomplishment.  You can
argue about the value of a person's accomplishments (say a Ph.D.)
but you can't argue that they did accomplish something besides
sit around a table and talk about how to overcome the burdens
of being misunderstood because they're so gifted.  Instead of
hand-wringing with their fellow statospheric IQs maybe it would
be better if they were out in the trenches rubbing shoulders with
the masses to help raise the general level of those less fortunate.

Please excuse the strong hyperbole, but it's to make a point.