Bonds.
The bonds we forge with each other as Mensans, connecting with each other
even as we disagree amicably or just share thoughts about the Society to
which we all belong, are the strength of Mensa. Those connections are our
anchor, our cohesiveness in an otherwise diverse group that celebrates its
diversity. Letters to the editor are one means of connecting with each other.
Going Forward invites your comments on any issue pertaining to Mensa, including
topics that have not been addressed specifically in this newsletter.
After reading her "Adolescent Mensa" article in the last GF (Dec. '03), I think author Nancy Park needs to consider the possibility that she's in denial. What if the only people who want to join and stay in Mensa are nonconformists? Should we have a "Saintly Mensa" and a concomitant "Sinful Mensa"?
As a child growing up in a heavily church-directed family, I thought Mensa sounded like an elitist snob society. Few of the semi-saints Park seems to think Mensa needs as members would violate their lofty principles by associating with anything so prideful. I'm a deeply religious person; I'm simply not a Christian. And ain't I a Mensan?
Park contends that people drop out of Mensa because we're so nasty. She may be right, but it isn't members' sinful ways that are nasty, in my opinion. I almost dropped out after my first year because of some spiteful, antediluvian and self-righteously "virtuous, older folks'" insistence on controlling the way our local membership should always do everything _ from participating at meetings to organizing the newsletter. When you realize that being smart doesn't guarantee you won't be stupid, witless, or just plain mean, that's when being a meeting-going Mensa member seems fraught with social peril.
So why do I pay $49 a year to keep re-learning that? Because I discovered you don't have to go to meetings to be a Mensan or to enjoy other Ms. Maybe Parks' local chapter meetings just weren't enough for the dropouts; maybe nobody told them about SIGs, e-lists, Going Forward and the marvelous multiplicity of wise individuals who mostly, like Isaac Asimov, can't stand boorish or boring people — especially in groups.
I thoroughly enjoyed the Web edition of Going Forward (Dec. '03) although I have not seen the print publication that I have heard so much about. Going Forward somewhat reminds me of why I subscribe to Texas Monthly. I believe in the right to express opinions and have the intellectual fun of defending those opinions. I am not a "Card Carrying" member of Mensa because of the time it takes to defend an opinion. I could embrace the spirit of the organization if it weren't for the need to be so politically correct. Whether it be controversy with GenXers or The AMC, it takes away from the day-to-day operations and having fun. I have to have a real life and it takes up too much time just trying to get by. But for those who don't have to have a job and can spend that much time pondering the moment, I salute you. The GF content is so interesting, it's a shame that Mensa and its organizational followers miss the boat. You at GF have the premise correct. Ideas and opinions, no one is actually wrong. Just Think!
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Going Forward's policy is that both the Web and print versions should be identical, that nobody should be penalized in terms of missing content due to not being able or not wanting to read on-line. Occasionally space requirements force us to deviate from this policy. Readers who saw both the print and on-line version of the last issue of GF noticed that the on-line version did have something the print version did not: an editorial by The Joyce Lundeen on proxy voting. The decision to cut the editorial from the print edition was made purely on considerations of space, which would have increased cost. The editor will make a print copy of the editorial available to any reader who requests it. Any person who would prefer to receive GF regularly in print form may send a subscription request to Steve and LeAnne Porter (address on inside back cover). Subscriptions are free; donations are happily accepted.]
In My Own Little World, all communication would be in the format most convenient to me at the time. At work, everything would be available on the Web. I'd have paper copies of all newsletters and correspondence when I'm out and about, without access to a computer. And since this is My Own Little World, recycling, toting, storage, privacy, budget, energy and time wouldn't be problems — everything would just Work Right. Unfortunately, not only does no one else live in My Own Little World, but neither do I.
In many ways, I completely agree with Sandra Bekele ("Hard Copy, Revisited," Dec. '03) about paper newsletters. Paper is a special medium that allows for placement and layout and format exactly the way the editor envisions. I can curl up with paper on the couch, or, more likely, peruse it in bursts while waiting for the spaghetti to boil and checking kids' homework papers.
Electronic distribution of newsletters also has its uses, though. I can check the address and directions for the Friday night gathering before leaving my office. I'm much more likely to send a quick e-mail to an author questioning a point or agreeing with a concept if I'm already sitting at my computer. It's much easier to republish an article on the regional Website if I have it in electronic form originally. Electronic communication has a convenience factor that just isn't there when something is in paper form on my kitchen table.
As a regional Webmaster, I try to read all of Region 3's local group newsletters. Since there isn't a reimbursement program in place to provide local group newsletters to regional Webmasters, several groups send me electronic versions, or a username/password to an on-line version. And unless I happen to have a free moment when the newsletter e-mail arrives, I often don't "get to" the on-line ones. Several groups (out of the goodness of their hearts and their own budgets) send me a paper copy. I read all of those, cover to cover; and, as appropriate, information in their newsletters makes it onto the regional site.
So, from a personal preference point of view, I understand Sandra's point. Where my concern is, though, is the growing opinion that there is a "movement" toward having local group newsletters be solely electronic. I'm on both the Webmaster and Editor lists; the idea has been discussed in both places. Every discussion of this topic of which I've been aware has ended up supporting an `opt-in' e-mail newsletter, leaving the choice of paper or electronic to the individual. Groups that do have opt-in electronic newsletters report that it does save them money, but only a small percentage of subscribers requests newsletters electronically. The Communications Officer has stated that he does not support mandatory electronic newsletters. I don't see a "movement." I see an idea that was brought forth, discussed and decided against. (And brought forth again, discussed again and decided against — again.)
I also understand that since no one lives in My Own Little World, compromises are going to have to be found. There are only a small number of requirements for local group newsletters — the calendar, election information, ombudsman information, a periodic treasurer's report. Everything else is optional. Groups with tight budgets (which might mean all of them) are looking at their newsletters to determine how to cut costs — and cost cutting might mean moving some optional content to the Web.
It's a tough question — but there isn't a "good for all" answer — and the balancing of budget and preference is going to take a lot of compromise.
In the December '03 issue of Going Forward, Francis Cartier writes:
… On page 21 [of the September issue], Sander Rubin writes about "ordering or weighing the various values" and observes that "… A society must also do that in some collective fashion." Well, first of all, Mensa as a society is rightly forbidden to express an opinion on anything. Second, no one has ever been able to get all Mensans to agree on anything. Third, Sander seems to imply that humans are like a hive of bees or a colony of ants that somehow may have a collective mind. There is no collective mind of humans. The closest we come to that is churches, each of which has a leader who cultures it.
I celebrate the fact that Mensa is nothing like a church.
First, the constitutional prohibition against Mensa's expressing an opinion is itself a verbal expression of a community value. The necessity for determining a community's values cannot be logically refuted by appealing to a value. Self-referential statements create logical contradictions that need to be faced up to. Nothing I wrote relates to the expression by Mensa of an opinion; my essay, from which Francis quotes, refers to the determination of internal "corporate" values of the society, which may be expressed either explicitly in documents or implicitly by the behaviors of its constituents. Politics is essentially about values, and it is fundamentally irresponsible for us to duck that issue by making sweeping statements about what we may or may not do.
Second, Francis' argument about lack of unanimity among members is, at best, irrelevant, if not specious. No one (certainly not I) suggested that unanimous agreement was possible or even desirable in Mensa. The problem remains that Mensa's internal values will be, willy-nilly, established. The political inquiry, therefore, is how they will be established. In practice, it has been the case that those who have been elected to offices in the society have adopted the position (often explicitly), "We've been elected so we can run it as we please." This lack of a sense of trusteeship, of obligation to have regard for others' interests and values, has been destructive of the originally expressed values of Mensa and — on a practical level — costly to the community.
Third, what Francis infers from my writing is nothing like what I think or have exhibited in my Mensa career. In his reference to unanimity, he has switched the context to his own thoughts, substituted his misunderstanding for my understanding, and projected them on me. To set the context for my partial list of personal values, I wrote the following:
The "real world" and the Mensa microcosm share the characteristic of lacking a "mission statement" or a coherent goal. This is not a weakness but an essential fact; attempts to adopt a closed purpose have all too frequently led to totalitarian or oppressive regimes. It is the diversity of individual missions and goals that [is] the strength of any well-functioning society. To give substance to this statement, consider the variety of ultimate values that people hold …
Where in that statement can anyone reasonably find a desire for unanimity or authoritarianism? In no way did I imply that open societies — certainly not Mensa — are like hives of bees (although one might argue that idealized bureaucracies and industrial corporations often share hive-like characteristics). It is Francis who has injected images of uniformity and conformity into the picture. Elsewhere, I have written about the value of a good dose of chaos to counter our desire for order.
My essay illustrated the problem of resolving community values by comparing it to the diversity of personal values that individuals hold. The essay posited that diversity is a source of strength, not a weakness to be overcome. While there is a similarity between the resolution of personal conflicts of values and the resolution of social values, the processes lie in different domains. Private values lie in the domain of psychology, which rests on neurological mechanisms. The process is internal to individuals' heads and only partially accessible to them when individuals engage in reflective thought. Public values lie in the domain of politics. At that level, we all need to engage in critical discussion among ourselves and neither follow blindly appeals to fear or greed nor substitute wishes for facts and analysis. In the domain of social institutions, the cognate of psychoanalysis and psychology is politics, but similarity is far from identity; the "rules" of the two games are not the same.
I find it particularly objectionable whenever Member A writes to the public and states what member B thinks. It deprives the person being discussed of his own individuality. Projecting one's own values and concepts on another is intellectual usurpation. It is a behavior that I've seen among Mensans, in both official and ordinary capacities, for many years. It has been a form of betrayal of Mensa's founding values.
Finally, writing as one comfortable with the label "secular humanist," I see the statement "Mensa is nothing like a church" to be existentially and logically untrue, an unjustified assumption. But an argument about that matter is for another time.
Brian Bloch has scribed a redundant letter filled with discredited claims, but repetition does not equal truth.
With my article and previous letter, I provided extensive references. Though they did not appear in print for space reasons, the references for my original article are available through links in the Web version. Bloch has yet to provide a reference, verifiable or otherwise, for any of his statements. He attempts to bolster his argument by distorting my words and meaning.
I encourage all of you to check my references and do some research of your own. The facts are readily available on the World Wide Web. The damage to American Mensa is being done, despite Bloch's protests to the contrary. Several SCLC members have items on their Websites that establish that they believe that Mensa is a service club. On our own American Mensa Web page, one of the first things visitors see is community service, being referred to as part of Mensa membership.
Burn away the dross in this debate and two things remain: A documented case that some of our officers are trying, with some success, to remake American Mensa as a service club; and the ashes of Brian Bloch's writings on this topic.
Bloch may continue the pretense that there is no problem. Some, hopefully only a few, fellow travelers may believe him. I think the majority of you can see through the rhetorical tactics. The resolution of this problem is now up to the membership. American Mensa needs a regime change.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Howes's reference material can be seen in the back issues of GF. The Finance Committee, held in February of this year, did include a budget recommendation to continue to finance Mensa's presence at the SCLC conference, which this year will be held in Geneva, Switzerland. This topic has been debated, rebutted and readdressed, several times — and this particular aspect of the subject is now closed in GF. Please address any concerns/views about the matter to the appropriate AMC officer.]
The headline "Redefining Acts Inimical" (May
'03, p. 11), set in German blackletter, contains a slight error. In
the word "Acts," the wrong "s" was used at the end.
In German, as in 17th- and 18th-century English,
the "
"
is used only at the start or middle of words; if it is a final letter,
the "
"
is used, which is the character that survived in modern usage. In actual
usage, you would say "
"
Perhaps your computer font didn't give you the choice of two "s's."
On pages 22-23 of the same issue, Paul Jensen's somewhat mangled logic misses the point above all points, which is that Mensa has a retention problem simply because it doesn't know it has the worst problem of all: It has no idea what it stands for.
In its glorious freedom of having no opinions and taking no positions, Mensa has fallen into the trap of standing for nothing and therefore presenting a blank, featureless face to the world. It has a single qualification, but no purpose. One joins it only because one can. As a result, prospects are left to fill in the blank in their reason for joining with anything that occurs to their imagination. This open-ended invitation is fine, except that when the new member finds that Mensa cannot deliver on his imaginary expectations, he drops out. Having proved he can get in, he has no further use for Mensa and drops out as soon as he can.
The stated purposes of Mensa, which appear in an obscure document rarely read by any Mensan and never by a prospect, have no marketing value. We deliver on them, more or less; but they're obviously not what the market imagines when it signs up, or we'd have no retention problem (except for those who find the dues too expensive).
Why do prospects join Mensa? We obviously have no idea or we'd have fixed the problem. Bragging rights? That gets stale after the first year, and probably isn't worth $49. A better job and career advancement? Academic respect? A happier love life? We can't promise any of that. We claim that Mensa "provides services for over 50,000 individual members," but evidently we don't provide what they really want, or nobody would drop out. The member would put that $49 at the top of his budget priorities, and nothing could pry him away from his Mensa membership.
The first rule of marketing is that the market is never wrong. Whatever it wants, you deliver, or you're not in that particular market. Period.
Nobody said, "It's easier to keep a member than to find a new one." The correct statement is, "It's cheaper." Advertising and recruiting always cost more than sending a renewal invoice. The point is, if an organization knows what it's doing, and communicates that to its membership — loud and clear — there are no mistaken expectations and very few dropouts.
Some 25 years ago, I was in a rural section of the Poconos in Pennsylvania. Eager to meet new people and have some fun interacting with them, I joined the only club of any type in the area, the Western Poconos Lions Club. There were no misapprehensions on either side. I knew I was expected to attend a splendid dinner meeting twice a month, complete with reasonably priced drinks and good card games. I was expected to help out in the drive to protect people's vision, to collect used eyeglasses and to accept any assignment at club functions, such as testing vision, hearing and blood pressure at the county fair, participating in blood drives, etc. — the typical service club routine. If I missed a meeting, I was fined by the "Tail Twister." I didn't get out of assigned jobs with any excuse lighter than a death in the family. I knew what was expected of me, and I knew what to expect; and in the three years of community service and trips to Phillies and Eagles games, the only members I saw drop out were those who moved out of the area. Nobody quit for lack of interest.
But Mensa — what do we guarantee up front? Not much, except the opportunity to meet other people who passed the test, which includes a generous helping of underachievers, neurotics and others in a cross-section of American life.
Two things stand out in the debate about retention: First, you would think that an organization of smart people could, given 57 years to do it, define itself in terms that would make outsiders salivate; second, if there is one thing about Americans which is obvious to everyone else in the world (if not to ourselves), it is that this country has no use for any organization which, if it does not promise career advancement (such as the AMA, ADA, ABA, etc.) or political clout (such as the NRA, AARP, AFL-CIO, etc.), does not promise that it's a lot of fun. Nobody wants to belong to a prissy outfit that is hung up on administration, amateur politics, status-seeking and punishing people for stepping on sidewalk cracks or other "acts inimical."
In short, we ought to pay less attention to the AMC (which has done nothing about the retention problem, except to aggravate it) and more to Hell's Mensans, who understand that if $49 doesn't guarantee that people will step aside as you pass them on the street, it at least ought to ensure that its customers will eat, drink and be merry in ways that the general public is bound to envy.
It's simple marketing, folks — something that any $20 hooker or carny pitchman understands. Why is it so difficult for the top two percent to get a handle on it?
If I hired a risk management firm to assess my risks, I'm sure they would find something. It's risky to get out of the bed in the morning, to answer the front door and to open my mail.
I doubt, however, that I could use this risk factor as an excuse to set up a dictatorship over my husband, my neighbor and my mailman. Since when is the AMC responsible for the Special Interest Groups (SIGs) set up by individuals of like mind? If I throw a party, I'll take responsibility for any inadvertent damage done on my property. If an individual is harmed, those who harmed him/her bear that legal burden. That goes for hosting a SIG, too. I don't need a keeper, and I don't consider the national Mensa hierarchy as being in charge of my welfare. So far, the only thing I have seen our leaders do extremely well is spend our money.
It doesn't take a high IQ to recognize risk. My conclusions are that our officers need to get a life, and that we're giving these people far too much money to play with. Let's lower our dues, or better yet, give more back to the local chapters that keep Mensa alive.