Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
From: hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (Jerry Hollombe)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: RE: Re: Mensa and elitism
Message-ID: <170@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Dec-84 23:01:23 EST
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.170
Posted: Thu Dec 27 23:01:23 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Dec-84 23:34:06 EST
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 105

[]

Now we've got the discussion perking along nicely, I suppose it's time to
turn down the flames and try to generate some light.  So ...

>From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry)
>Subject: Re: Mensa and elitism
>Message-ID: <722@ames.UUCP>
>        From ttidcc!hollombe (Jerry Hollombe):
>> As usual, the point has been raised that Mensa is an elitist  organization.
>> This  is  true.  It  is  also  true  of highschool football teams, symphony
>> orchestras, and the company you probably work for (do you  seriously  think
>> they  hire  anyone  who walks in the door?).  Any organization which sets a
>> standard for membership is an elitist organization.  I  don't  hear  anyone
>> condemning the American Bar Association for being elitist (you have to pass
>> a bar exam to join).  I've never been able to pass a  calculus  course.  Is
>> the   American  Mathematical  Society  to  be  criticized  for  denying  me
>> membership?
  
>        The other organizations you mention could be called elitist,
>but their standards for membership are based on *accomplishment*, not
>innate ability.

One doesn't usually find any "97 pound  weaklings"  on  even  a  highschool
football team.  Neither will you find any tin ears in a symphony orchestra.
These are innate abilities.  Whether what  intelligence  tests  measure  is
innate ability or acquired ability remains somewhat controversial. (More on
this anon.)

>> We live in an elitist society.  To claim anything else is  pure  hypocrisy.
>> The  concept  "that  all  men  are  created equal" has a fine, high-minded,
>> idealistic ring to it.  It is also utter nonsense.  The fact  is  that  all
>> people  are not created equal and they certainly don't become equal as they
>> grow older.
>
>        My precise point. The premise of mensa seems to be that you qualify
>for membership by what you *are*, not what you've done. Formally,
>you could argue that you qualify by the accomplishment of scoring well
>on certain tests, but, as you here imply, that is not the premise
>of mensa. The premise is that these tests actually measure something
>meaningful about you, something innate.

The question of what exactly "intelligence tests" measure is an interesting
and  controversial  one.  What  follows  here  is  my opinion, based on the
knowledge and experience  acquired  while  earning  a  Master's  degree  in
Clinical Psychology.

I don't think there really is such a thing as an  "intelligence  test".  To
understand  why,  try to think up a good definition of intelligence (yes, I
know it's  in  the  dictionary).  It's  difficult  to  devise  a  test  for
something  when even the experts can't agree on a working definition of it.
What IQ tests actually measure might be called "academic potential" --  how
likely  the  person taking the test is to do well in academic activities at
the time of taking the test.  This was the stated purpose of  the  original
Binet  test  which  put  the term "IQ" into our vocabulary.  It is also the
purpose of such tests as the SAT, ACT, GRE,  etc.  These  tests  have  been
refined  and  tuned over years of comparing test predicted performance with
actual performance until they are probably the most accurate  psychological
instruments in existence (about 70%).

There is no clear cut answer to whether what these tests measure is  innate
or learned.  It seems intuitively obvious that both nature and nurture play
a significant role in test performance.  What part each plays and which  is
most influential remains controversial.

>arbitrary measurement, and is thus a false elitism? Having just read
>Gould's THE MISMEASURE OF MAN, my doubts about the worth of IQ tests
>are particularly acute at the moment.

I haven't read Gould's book, so I can't comment on it.  There does seem  to
be  much  paranoia  about  "IQ"  testing in the world, much of it caused by
ignorance and misunderstanding of the techniques  and  their  purpose.  The
tests  are  also  misused in many cases which perhaps justifies some of the
paranoia.

>        Actually, I don't object to mensa; even went to a mensa open
>house, once, to check it out. But I do disagree with the implication
>in your article that mensa members are an elite of any sort. The question
>of what IQ tests actually measure (beyond one's skill at taking IQ tests)
>is still far too open to permit that conclusion.

Actually, it's everyone else who calls Mensa  an  elitist  organization.  I
was  just  agreeing  for  the  sake of argument.  Certainly, the members of
Mensa are a highly selected group.  Whether this makes  them  an  elite  is
debatable.  It's  the  rest  of  the world who labels them as such and then
resents them for it.  Mensa per se expresses no  opinion  as  to  what  the
scores  may  actually  mean (Mensa officially has no opinions at all on any
subject), though its very existence implies they mean something.  The sheer
range  of  tests  accepted  by  Mensa  as  evidence  of  qualification  for
membership would seem  to  acknowledge  the  uncertainty  inherent  in  the
definition and measurement of intelligence.

I think that's enough for now.  I'm dialing in  from  home  this  week  and
screen  editing at 300 baud is bloody hard work.  Hope everyone had a happy
holiday season.

-- 
The Polymath
(Jerry Hollombe)                  Opinions expressed here are my own
Transaction Technology, Inc.      and unrelated to anyone else's.
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.
Santa Monica, CA  90405
United States
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
...{garfield,lasspvax,linus,cmcl2,seismo}!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe