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.