Hi, fellow LocSecs. I'm the LocSec of Northern Michigan Mensa or NMM. (Actually in response to and inspired by Kim/Kimberly Dunlevy I've started the process to change my local group's bylaws so we'll and I'll use the title "President" - thanks, Kim.)
A couple weeks ago, I posted a long article about gossip, speculation, current goings-on, and what to do. Mensans asked me two questions; I'll answer one here - the other later, in another post.
That is a sad, pessimistic conclusion. I think Mensa has potential; can potentially succeed. I like being a Mensan; I am not actually ready to quit.
This post doesn't paint a way forward. I do have some ideas which I intend to outline in another post.
I'm a new Mensan - I joined less than 4 years ago, so my knowledge of Mensa is relatively slight - for example I know little of how the ombudsman role functions, what supporting documents or policies they use. Things I say could be wrong. My "take" on things should be treated as a newcomer's or learner's point of view. I am open to correction, instruction, augmentation, elucidation, comments, and constructive criticism.
This article I'm writing is in response to Robert Swenson, LocSec of Mid-America Mensa, who asked:
... I have been wondering about other organizations and how they operate. You mentioned the Rotary Club, and that seems like a relatively similar group. Are they pretty popular in Northern Michigan? What do they do that attracts and keeps members? In my area (Kansas City), the rotary club seems to be very popular, with several chapters within an hour drive from me. It seems like they have monthly luncheons with a speaker, so it's both a networking opportunity, fun meal, and potentially educational, or at least entertaining, event each month. How do those groups deal with the cranky mensan types that you mentioned, and what can Mensa learn from them? My own thinking is it has to do with the ability to work politely with other people, or not, and how the group tolerates people who lack this skill. What are your thoughts?
Since Robert asks about Rotary, there is going to be a lot about Rotary in this post - a lot of it flattering. Rotary's a very good club, and institution. I was quite happy with Rotary - loved my time in it in fact - but I do not say that it's better than Mensa. To anyone who might get the impression that I'm praising Rotary and dissing Mensa - which would invite the obvious suggestion "So just quit Mensa and go back to Rotary since you say it's so great" - that is not my intent. I joined Mensa partly for the heck of it, partly for the social aspect, and partly because 2 of the 3 purposes outlined in the Mensa constitution, happen to align with my own interests.
My intent here is to characterize the two organizations, to point out their fundamental differences, and to make the case that solutions that work for one group, won't - or aren't likely, or guaranteed to - work for the other.
I was a Rotarian for some 10 years (actually a short time for a Rotarian) - and, due to 2 moves, a member of 3 different Rotary Clubs (somewhat like Mensa's Local Groups). Rotarians join and belong to local clubs, you don't join at a national level. If you move, you actually quit your old club and apply for membership to a new club, and there's a process. Some implications of this will be seen below.
Rotarians are welcome to drop in to other clubs' meetings and every club I've ever seen welcomes the drop-ins. (Actually, virtually all Rotary clubs allow non-Rotarians to attend one or a few regular meetings; this is a way of getting introduced to and learning about Rotary. If anyone reading this, doubts any of it, I suggest you do just this: contact your local Rotary club and go sit in on a meeting or two. They may require that you attend as a guest of a particular Rotarian but this is generally easy to arrange.) If it's a lunch or breakfast meeting typically the club covers/pays for the visiting Rotarian's meal. Though this is no longer the case, it was in times past considered obligatory to attend your local Rotary club's meeting every single week. If you were out of town you could attend another club's meeting; if you were sick there were options for "make-up" meetings which typically meant that the Rotarian would travel to a nearby club to attend their meeting - you could get a certificate of attendance to bring back to your home club as proof. Many clubs today still have some of those old certificates sitting around somewhere.
I have personally known several Rotarians who can boast of 25 or 30 years' perfect attendance; if they did miss a meeting they'd attend a make-up meeting. Or one time, one guy who'd had surgery even wanted to attend from his hospital bed! The other members accommodated him and held that week's meeting in the Rotarian's hospital room.
This pride in perfect attendance is just one bit of evidence - there are many others - of:
When I joined Rotary I was surprised to find that it was an honor to be one. Non-Rotarians, quite commonly, do actually look up to Rotarians. Seeing Rotarians as honorable, honest, successful, and a major force for good. Yes, there are some - fewer now as the decades go by - who remember Rotary's past reputation as a bunch of rich, white, male, fat, Republicans. I could add "who sit around congratulating each other" but that was never true even back in the old days. Rotary gained, earned, and maintained respect for several reasons, chief among them, the various civic projects it carried out. With a minimum of fuss, publicity, and/or self-aggrandizement, by the way - we would often note that Rotary was the most effective and beneficial club that you never heard about. Yet people did hear and find out, as people will and do, largely by word of mouth, and it made a difference. Attitudes were positive overall both within and without. Rotarians and Rotary earned prestige.
Regarding putting the other before self: the level of commitment, dedication, or even, you might just as well call it "devotion" to Rotary, is unusual in Mensa, in my brief experience. I don't mean to diss anyone; I suppose there might be Mensans, perhaps even a lot of them, who exhibit a high level of devotion. Personally I can attest to two - Billie Lee, who is approximately as devoted to Proctoring (and apparently to Mensa generally) as one could imagine and hope for, and Rick Magnus, my own RVC, who speaks of "fiduciary duty" so sincerely - also he walks the walk - that I had to look the word up to clarify my own knowledge of what "fiduciary" actually means.
Right away when I first joined Mensa I noticed The Irascibility Problem. It was really off-putting! I went on to Mensa Connect and approximately the first posts I read were a couple of Mensans sniping at each other about some inane thing or other. One of them responded by insulting the other's intelligence, basically calling him stupid. The insultee responded that "No, I'm not stupid" and that he had his "smart person card." Personally I thought it was kind of odd for a Mensan to claim that another Mensan was of low intelligence. (But then of course, "stupid" is a mirror word; a concept I'd invented myself in my 30s; why hadn't this Mensan figured that out for himself?) This was like pre-kindergarten behavior in my experience and I'm not completely exaggerating - I've personally witnessed 6-year-olds (that's "six" - not a typo) chairing meetings at Montessori schools who did a better job of maintaining collegiality.
In that particular case I quickly/summarily wrote off Mensa Connect entirely, and didn't log on to it for a long time afterward.
I won't belabor the point: I think that Mensans generally agree - we have an irascibility problem.
Other clubs - and/or organizations - deal with such problems in a few ways.
First of all they forestall it. For example, Harvard has a very quiet policy, a (mandatory) step in their admission process: before an applicant to Harvard gets too far along, they're required to meet with a Harvard alumnus/alumna. There are Harvard alums scattered all over so this is possible. The purpose is to get at least a minimal assessment of the candidate's personality, et cetera - kind of like a job interview. "Is he/she Harvard material?" might never be voiced in those exact words but the intent is there, and so is the process - or at least it was until recently. I believe that part of the process is to assess not only personability but also mental health, but I can't say; I've never been to Harvard and am only relaying/recounting what I've heard and read.
As for Rotary. To join a Rotary club, you need to be sponsored by a current member of that club. Rotarians treat this pretty seriously. I remember a District Governor - more or less equivalent to a Mensa RVC - who visited us to check in and give us a pep talk and update. She said it straight up and with evident sincerity and passion: "Rotary welcomes with open arms anyone of good character." That "good character" part can mean a lot of things but in practice it amounts to:
Rotarians are pretty careful about this. Everyone knows and remembers who sponsored whom; it's a real honor if, for example, you've "sponsored in" several good, consistently attending and contributing members. If you sponsor someone into the club and they turn out to be bad, it looks bad on you, it harms your own reputation. You are (accurately) seen as someone who's - albeit indirectly - harmed the club; even if inadvertently or to a small extent. You're not going to get thrown out of the club, but people might look at you differently in the future, question your judgement. And they'll certainly be skeptical if and when you suggest sponsoring in another candidate.
There is more to Rotary's invitation process; multiple people look in to the candidate, generally the board (not the club's general membership) must vote to accept/admit the candidate - though specific details vary from club to club. Suffice it to say, Rotary's pretty picky, by design. Sometimes, when someone's candidacy is still just a vague idea and no sponsor has stepped up yet, a fact is mentioned, a caution is voiced, a hint is dropped or a lead shared, a guarded-but-portentious leading question asked. At which point the "admission" process might well fail to proceed even before it starts.
None of this may be apparent to the candidate. Most people who apply, do get in. There's no "grilling" process. Inquiries and proceedings are discreet. To the incoming Rotarian it feels routine or like you just "sailed in."
If that all sounds very cliquish - it really isn't. Rotary's quite serious about inclusivity and works hard to include women, people from different backgrounds, races, all the standard categories and some non-standard ones. Rotary wants members and is excited and delighted to get (good) ones. With hundreds of clubs, all different, I suppose there might be some that are elitist, but I have never run into any. Though membership dues vary widely and some clubs are very expensive.
I suppose it is obvious by now that none of this "preventiveness" can possibly work with or in Mensa. We have our one "Prime Criterion" and I'm fully in agreement with it. You either are, or are not, in the top 2%. If you're qualified you may join; there is no other test - in particular there is no character test.
Still, though I agree with our admission criterion, I personally believe that some version of preventing The Irascibility Problem before it ever even gets close to wreaking havoc, is not just important, but critical to Mensa's - or any other group's - survival. "Bad drives out good," "A spoon of tar ruins a barrel of honey." Examples abound of Mensans who quit in response to personal attacks, offenses, or they simply had bad experiences dealing with some particular person(s).
My own thoughts about how to achieve a solution given the fact of Mensa's "one criterion only" design, run to:
But I have not yet fully formed these ideas (recall, I'm a newbie - I need to consult and collaborate with other Mensans). I need to skull 'em around with Mensans.
During every meeting of every Rotary club, members (typically stand to) recite the Rotary 4-Way Test. After you've said this aloud some hundreds of times it trips off the tongue:
Of the things we say and do:
- Is it the TRUTH?
- Is it FAIR to all concerned?
- Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
- Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?
Rotary says "The Four-Way Test is a nonpartisan and nonsectarian ethical guide for Rotarians to use for their personal and professional relationships." It is far from lip-service; Rotarians frequently use the tool; it becomes habitual, a default go-to; automatic, even. You hear Rotarians saying things like "Let's just run the 4-way test on it"; "Hey, that wouldn't pass the 4-way test"; and other variants, all the time.
To me, having recited this for a decade, I consider it a secular litany. It functions as religious litanies do - both in form or performance (everyone standing and reciting in unison) and function (it binds together the congregation and centers it around the central belief, fortifies commitment, invites consideration and speculation, etc.)
I consider the prospect to be negligible, of getting a local group of Mensans, to do the above or anything like it. Not because "it's a simplistic rule for dumb people" - plenty of Rotarians are Mensa-caliber; they can see behind and beyond the simple phraseology and recognize the implications and the value. Rather, it's a matter of culture. Picture it for yourself: a bunch of Mensans reacting to the proposition of standing and reciting in unison a/any litany, secular or not.
Mensa and Rotary are fundamentally different kinds of groups. One focuses on collegiality and consensus; Mensa does not.
That doesn't mean there's any irrevocable incompatibility. Personally I think it's eminently possible to assemble a group of persons that's the best of both worlds - both smart and well-behaved, good collaborators, contributors. I guess that if they could all be persuaded to join, I could get together a Local Group larger in membership than my existing one (NMM - Northern Michigan Mensa) just by testing all the Rotarians in our geographic area. Rotarians are as a group smarter than average - I bet some 5% of Rotarians would qualify, and 5% of thousands'd make a nice-sized group. Similarly the majority of Mensans I meet would be completely capable of accepting, supporting, and behaving according to Rotary's 4-way test.
When I first joined Mensa I actually considered the prospect of forming a Rotary Club consisting of Mensans - maybe even structuring it as a Mensa SIG or a Rotary "fellowship" - Rotary's word for much the same thing. I dropped the idea partly because it would take more work than I can devote (Mensa isn't my primary thing I do or work on), but mainly, because the two groups have differing visions of what "inclusive" means.
Rotary says "We in Rotary are maximally inclusive - subject (only) to the 'good character' requirement/condition."
Mensa says "We in Mensa are maximally inclusive - subject (only) to the 'top 2%' criterion."
Though these two conceptions of inclusivity are not contradictory, still I figure that when two bodies have such different conceptions, any sort of union is best left up to individuals, or maybe small groups. Meaning, if you're a Mensan, check out your local Rotary Club, see if you like it, join and attend if you want. And/or invite smart Rotarians to try testing into or qualifying for Mensa.
Robert asked about Rotary specifically, so I quoted Rotary's 4-way test, but of course Rotary's not the only body that has ever thought of this sort of thing. Here are two other similar tests:
This one comes from a proverb I've variously seen attributed either to Africans or Arabians:
And this one comes from the TV series The Crown (so I don't know if this is really true) in which Queen Elizabeth is portrayed stating her own code:
All these are valuable. However not one of them can work if the forestalling/preventing I mentioned above, isn't somehow carried out. People do exist, who:
Mensa for whatever reason seems to have an inordinate number of folks who are somewhat like this; folks who simply won't be bound to ethical codes like these; they just won't do it; they just don't, nor won't, behave that way.
It's valuable for Robert to have asked his question; basically "How do they does Rotary do what they do, and can we do that?" The use of codes of behavior like these comes to mind, but to say "well, let's just implement them then Mensa-wide" is naive. I do think - or actually, know - that there's value in these codes. But they can only work with the right group.
Similarly, it's possible to invent, craft, refine not just codes but other things like constitutions, guidelines, policies & procedures. The problem - or fatal flaw - is the same - bad actors make a mess anyway. Also, in practice in the real world, you find that though you work hard to carefully and specifically tailor and craft these rule sets, they all come up short. Much as we love to create rules, you can never get them perfect. Eventualities arise - or folks find loopholes to exploit and devise stratagems to exploit them - that you never envisioned.
A brighter view of the same "one can't create the perfect rule set" is that - in my experience - rules can flex quite a bit, and/or even be invented real-time and ad hoc. The best successes I've experienced with groups - the most favorable outcomes I've had, been part of, experienced - have shown me that if you have:
then, basically, nothing can stop you, you're going to succeed. Compared to getting that part right, the rules in many cases don't even really matter that much.
Of course the specifics will depend on the particular circumstances; you do have to be smart about things. Also there's the issue of scale; some things that are near-automatic in a small or even medium-size group can start to fail, or become inadequate, when the group gets larger.
Method 3: Expulsion, exclusion
Even if we did have some sort of prior screening mechanism - even a near-perfect one - a person could:
It happens in Rotary; I suppose it happens in every organization, association, and/or club.
I'm not a Mensa constitutional expert - remember I'm a newbie! - nor do I know how Mensa's ombudsman process works, either at the local group or national level. I do know that our NMM bylaws 1) contain no provision for expulsion and 2) says membership in Northern Michigan Mensa is "open to" all members of American Mensa in good standing "in the geographic area assigned to Northern Michigan Mensa". To me it's clear that we in NMM don't get to pick our own membership. If a situation can't be handled by the ombudsman, I guess an expulsion would require an AMC board decision. I'm not familiar with the process but I imagine it to be longer, more drawn-out, and more fractious.
For reasons I mentioned, this solution - expulsion - doesn't come up a lot in Rotary, but Rotary has 1.4 million members so obviously it occurs. When it happens things generally move quickly and decisively.
Even a somewhat slight whiff of bad behavior is generally quickly dealt with. Something like treating a woman rudely - either in a meeting or in private - would be called out, right away; the member would be "talked to" - generally of course in private at least initially. This typically would not rise to any level of formality. It could be your own sponsor, or a Rotarian with long seniority, just chatting/mentioning. Rotary's standards for behavior are very high and I myself was "counseled" one time - by our club president - when the facility manager of our venue - an irascible sort himself - complained of my behavior in borrowing their equipment. I immediately backed right down. I didn't want to hurt Rotary.
Rotarians earn their place of trust in the community in many ways, and some of these ways - or "avenues of service" do actually require a very high level of trust. I've personally carried heavy trays of hot steaming food (too heavy for a woman to carry or even lift safely) into a women-and-children-only safe house, where men were flatly disallowed by policy. But an exception was made, without a fuss and almost reflexively. Not because it was me - nobody there knew me, also I'm nothing special - but because "it's Rotary." (OK, also because I was toting a huge tray of delicious, nutritious, hot steaming food.) You don't want anyone creepy nor any sort of "bad actor" to worm their way into a situation like that. And Rotarians deal with children and vulnerable people a lot. So the responsibility is very great.
Back to bad behaviors. If the Rotarian doesn't fix their behavior pretty much right away and completely, or if it were serious enough - including behavior in the community completely separate from Rotary, such as developing a reputation for shady dealing, cheating, verbal or physical abusiveness - the club's board would get involved. I said, standards and expectations are high, and there isn't a big emphasis on due process; the odds are stacked in favor of the club's reputation. Just like the board can admit a candidate to Rotary, they can expel them also. This requires a vote of the board. This is all be done on/at the local level, within the (local) Rotary Club itself - this'd be equivalent to the ExComm of a local group expelling a Mensan. The decision's final as far as I ever heard.
The details of each club's policies and procedures in these matters vary - each club is more or less free to decide and design and implement its own. So, whether an expulsion requires a 3/4, 2/3, or simple majority vote; depends both on the club, its own rules, and on other factors and circumstances.
Perhaps it occurs to the reader that legal tricks and maneuvers could be attempted. This is less likely to work in Rotary; partly because of the emphases I outlined, and also because Rotary clubs frequently have a strong law enforcement presence. In my Illinois club, the county sheriff, the chief of police, and a retired judge were all active members. In one of my (very small) Michigan clubs the prosecutor and the sitting judge, along with a detective from the sheriff's department, were members. Most clubs have members who are lawyers. Nobody's going to pull any "lawyering tricks" on those folks - their professions involve frequent interaction with bad actors all the time and can smell something that's "off" from a mile away.
Rotarians join local clubs, they don't join at a national level. National and regional events are open only to Rotarians who are current members of local clubs. Therefore once you've been expelled by your local club, you're no longer a Rotarian. You could of course apply to join a different Rotary Club. The first question you're going to get asked is, have you ever been a member of another Rotary Club; the next thing that happens is that the new club contacts the old club. Without a formal (written) statement from the old club that you left as a member in good standing, you won't get into another Rotary Club. Faking it wouldn't work since all club memberships are reported to, and tracked by, Rotary International. I suppose that someone could game the system but I actually doubt that this would happen very often. Rotarians are good judges of character and their antennae are quite sensitive to evil, and/or discord. Also typically very detail-oriented.
None of the above - this expulsion from the local group which means expulsion from the entire organization - is possible with Mensa. Mensans join at the national level. I'm LocSec and I don't even know how I'd get a member of NMM expelled. Is it even possible? I suppose it probably is. I'm too new to know for sure. I'd have to ask our local ex-ombudsman; heck, we don't even have one, currently. Or I guess I could go to my RVC - I'm one of the fortunate 20% that still has one.
I still have a t-shirt from my Rotary days; on the front it says in big letters "Rotary Club of Baldwin, Michigan" - on the back it says in huge letters "SERVICE BEFORE SELF".
But Mensa is not a service club. In fact it seems to me that we are by design and in practice, focused on self. Most of us are in Mensa to
Buddhists I know could make a pretty good case that we Mensans have "crowned" our selves, either individually or collectively, and that we generally act in service to our selves; also that this must inevitably poison the whole enterprise.
I don't mean that as the damning characterization it sounds like; rather as an analytical "take" to describe and understand our situation.
To proceed while (hopefully) avoiding confusion I am going to have to deal with some terminology, and what could be claimed or seen to be, a contradiction.
I want to say that "Mensa has no central purpose, no mission, no project." Yet a glance at Mensa's constitution, or the American Mensa "About Us" or "Our Story" web page, shows the following:
Mensa's three purposes
From the Constitution of Mensa, there are three main purposes of Mensa:
So it seems false to say that Mensa isn't "about" or "dedicated" to any goal, project, etc. Yet there's truth to the statement that we Mensans have "no collective aims or purposes" which is a quote from one of the early fathers of Mensa, Victor Serebriakoff.
This is not a bad thing! We pride ourselves on being open to all types; our inclusivity and desire to accommodate mean we don't expect, nor demand, any Mensan to take any particular point of view, nor participate in any particular movement or effort. We certainly have no religious or political test.
Here's the quote again, along with another; both from Serebriakoff's book Mensa - an older book now but informative and relevant still:
"Mensa has no collective aims or purposes..."So what about Mensa's three aims or purposes? Serebriakoff himself recounts in his book the agreement upon and adoption of, one of the "aims":
(Chapter 2)
"People are used to the idea of an organisation formed to further some policy. There are few institutions without at least an ostensible one. It is natural to expect that Mensa should conform to this model. But the association of Mensa members is not based on any purpose or policy, other than association itself. It is based on an objective criterion of selection, an assessment of the applicant's ability to think effectively. Mensa aims to be a forum of the intelligent of every persuasion, so it is simply and permanently not possible for Mensa to have any controversial collective views or policies."
(Chapter 10)
Don Calogera La Placa ... persuaded me that Mensa should take upon itself the aim of fostering giftedness (rather than just collecting it) for the general benefit of humanity. ... I gave him a spot at the IGC meeting in Lugano and he managed by the sheer power of personal magnetism and charisma, with only a hesitant translation of his words by a local linguist, to persuade the meeting to accept his proposed amendment to our constitution. This became the Third Aim when it was accepted by a referendum.
So, Mensa has aims; also termed "purposes", they're listed. Yet at the same time "we're all about association" and not one of us is required, nor even expected, to support any of those aims.
One way of resolving this (apparent?) contradiction would be to say that The word "purpose" is used in two different ways, in two different contexts. But that feels unsatisfying to me; also I don't think it would satisfy a skeptical (or argumentative) Mensan.
Rather than try to attempt to resolve this apparent contradiction by resorting to language and documents - which I figure won't really satisfy - I'll instead cite my own observation. My contention, or characterization, is this: we're not a service club, Rotary is. To further it I'll contrast Mensa's 3 main purposes with a couple of Rotary things.
Rotary's 5 Avenues of Service:
Rotary's 6 Causes:
I skip elaboration of these 6 causes; those interested can find out more at https://www.rotary.org/en/our-causes. They're every bit as big a deal as they sound; they include the (sometimes huge) international projects you may have heard of, such as eradicating polio worldwide.
It doesn't take long for a Rotarian to find that the expectation to actively work toward these things (most often at the local club level), is real. Typically this is one of the best ways to get new members involved, engaged, excited - to get them over nervousness, get past that stage of feeling like an outsider. Also clubs need the help; and it's a very good test of both character and a bit of a challenge, as in "What you got?" My very first meeting when I transferred to a new club, a burly sheriff's deputy plunked a clipboard with signup sheet down in front of me with a look on his face that said pretty clearly "I dare you to try not signing up" and basically challenging me to prove my worth. You can bet I did sign on the dotted line (and ended up helping a lot of kids catch fish, on the day).
Not to diss Mensa, but compared to all of that Rotary stuff - and its practice - our three purposes are kind of puny, or limited. We come off looking relatively "unpurposed" or purposeless, by comparison. Again, I recognize that that's by design. I'm not saying that Mensa should be more like Rotary, nor like anyone else; nor am I saying that we should take on more purposes. I think that our three purposes are just right for our organization and our membership. Also I personally like and support them.
However, they - our three purposes - are not (so) compelling, inspiring. This has an effect. In a service club, the concept of being or acting like a "dedicated servant" fits or emerges quite naturally. You can't as easily devote yourself, or drum up others' devotion for, an organization that is relatively purposeless, or is relatively focused on the members themselves; you can't as easily "put the organization before self". In a phrase:
It is far easier to put Rotary before self, than to put Mensa before self, because Rotary's Causes and Avenues of Service are much more compelling.
That's all verbiage and theory. How well do we Mensans actually do at fulfilling the promise, providing the product, after decades of giving it a try? Here are Mensa's three purposes, with my comments:
Ask yourself: of your own Local Group, how many members actively put in major effort toward accomplishing the above three? Or in particular, the first two?
If all I wanted to do was to diss Mensa, I wouldn't - I'd just quit Mensa instead. So, though I stand by my (tentative, newbie's) observation that most Mensans aren't actively, assiduously involved in service, I do agree with the above three, Mensa's aims. They align with my own goals and efforts; they plus the social aspect are why I'm a Mensan. Also, I feel like again praising individual Mensans who do go above and beyond, and act in service. I'm not saying that they don't exist; I am saying that I do appreciate them - or, actually, you: I'm posting this in the LocSec forum and being a LocSec takes effort.
Similarly, whoever runs the IGNYTE event does good work; so do other Mensans. One Mensan in my Local Group used to run our local scholarship program. It was a good program and she did a lot of work, and she certainly embodied "service before self." I and a few others pitched in each year to act as judges. But this particular member noticed the overall lack of dedication to her cause, and to causes in general. She told me:
"I don't want to be part of a club, that's just a social club for smart people."
She's still a Mensa member but that kind of attitude - not unreasonable, justified and coming as it does from real-life experience - tends to contribute to dropping out.
I've repeated this member's comment fairly often now, to other Mensans. A common reaction - in fact around 50% - is "I disagree; I'm happy to participate in 'just' a social group for smart people, I think it's just fine." And since socializing is one of Mensa's three aims - in fact the only one that gets significant uptake - we, and I, must respect this.
However it is not compelling. Rotary clubs themselves suffer from this problem when the particular club gets lazy, contented, stagnant. I've seen (very) skilled, dynamic Rotarians quit Rotary because "You all don't do anything!" Some portion of Mensans, or would-be or candidate Mensans, do and will also feel this way.
Robert asked about Rotary so as I have written a lot about it, but none of it is specific to Rotary. There are plenty of other places where one may encounter and learn more or less these same sort of principles:
Not everyone reading this may recognize just how that latter point works out in practice. If you're not from a (harmonious) large family, and if you've only ever worked in a standard workplace, you may not have a lot of personal experience with it. Certain cultures (Switzerland, Japan) place a high value on this "going-along" but this isn't at all universal here in the U.S.A. Basically it means that when it comes to a disagreement, you don't consider just the one dimension of whether your solution, idea, plan, proposal, suggestion, et cetera, is better than the alternatives. You also consider a factor that is actually treated as more important than the facts at hand - and this is, "how high is the level of discord?" or similarly "how bad would/will the discord get if we keep going down this road?"
Or in other words the principle amounts to sometimes (or often or even near-universally) valuing "stability" more than correctness and effective action.
In my own prior experience in housing co-ops and retail food co-ops, these principles are considered foundational. Similarly when I visited communes (or "intentional communities" as they styled themselves) these principles were vital to survival - without them, dissolution would quickly ensue.
Again this is just a variation on the principle I described above: putting other before self.
An even simpler example came from a boss I had in a regular job in corporate America. We were in a kind of limbo or waiting period before a major project kicked off. He told me "We gotta get these folks working on something. You get a bunch of smart people together with nothing for 'em to do - you get trouble."
I mentioned that Rotarians are - generally though not universally - respected, even honored and looked up to, by the general populace. I was able to make use of this fact many times when setting up events, asking for help. Often I'd walk into a store for our annual fundraising drive and the person (business owner) would whip out a checkbook as soon as I introduced myself as a Rotarian. People just want to help 'cause they're aware of Rotarians packing food into backpacks for kids who take that food back to their bare-cupboard homes, Rotarians sitting for hours each week, week after week for entire school years, reading and studying with and mentoring "at-risk" youth, the fact that Rotary spearheaded - and for decades largely executed - the wiping-out of polio - and so on.
Unfortunately the instinctive reaction to Mensa is generally different: in my experience, a mixture of envy, contempt, and hatred, with the presumption that we're all arrogant elitists, looking down upon everyone else. And/or vain, trying to puff ourselves up. I myself - along with about half of Mensans I meet - dodge this perception, and the stigma and distancing that typically result, by staying "in the closet"; even my son doesn't know I'm a Mensan. Only 3 of my closest friends know I'm in Mensa. Like it or not I had to tell them, for (at that time anyway) I needed their letters of recommendation to become a proctor.
Personally I think that the problem of negative image and reaction:
Another Mensan in a different forum - from my own Region 3 - spoke of wanting to find in Mensa not just intelligence, but also wisdom. This post has not directly addressed that but I think you can see its relevance. Without going to a dictionary I'll use my own informal observation that wisdom involves being able to consider things from another's point of view. Putting other before self is related to that; also solving The Irascibility Problem is a prequisite - squabbling's unwise.
Robert asked me a fairly short, or middle-length question; I have responded with an overlong post, or really an article. I intended to make the case that what works for other organizations that may on quick consideration seem similar to Mensa, won't necessarily work for us. Our situation, our membership, our membership criterion, and our very constitution - all are different, markedly so.
The obvious question that then follows is "So what shall we do?" Another Mensan asked me this in response to my other long post. I'm not qualified to answer it, or at least not on my own. But I do know how I intend to move forward with my own Local Group, if my ExComm is willing, if Mensa at the national level either ceases self-destructing or else leaves me and us at the local level alone, and the stars all align just right. I will speak (or write) about this it in another post.
Oh yeah - about copyright. It surprised me when another Mensan read one of my long posts and asked for my permission to publish it in her club's newsletter. I had doubted that anyone would read all this overlong verbiage but I guess somebody does. So, yes, you're free to republish this article according to the Creative Commons "Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International" or "CC BY-SA 4.0" license, the details of which are described here: