Reinventing Mensa

Mensa then and now

Mensa was originally founded in England in 1946; Mensa America started in 1961. Some of our terminology ("Locsec") dates from back then, also much of our structure, practices, and behavior. Some challenges that existed back then - for example irascible Mensans - still exist now, along with new challenges. To reverse membership loss and (re-)create local Mensa groups that will outlive us, it is worth bearing in mind what and how things have changed, and consider what might need updating.

Communication, participation, work

Decades ago, there was:

One-to-many communication; newspapers, magazines, books, radio, and television.
One-to-one communication; letters and the telephone. Shortwave and Citizen's Band radio played minor roles.
Limited many-to-many communication, such as physical bulletin boards, "vox populi" sections in newspapers, and graffiti.

Real-time many-to-many communication was in-person. Conference calls, listservs, electronic bulletin boards, and remote meetings were still in the future.Therefore real-time collaborative decision-making, required attending meetings in person. So did multi-party socialization.

People were used to this and were not only joiners, but also attenders and workers - they had to be. So a weekly sit-down meeting with a speaker, could work. People attended 'cause they "had to" (see below); social pressure encouraged showing up, doing your share of the work, politeness.

Nowadays many free and/or widely available communication tools, decrease demand for and attractiveness of old-school meetings, and reduce or obviate the need for "people power".

A potential Mensan may be willing to chat, interact, and/or meet up with Mensans, yet decline, for example, to take on the duties of a treasurer. Or possibly any other duties. Many administrative and organizational tasks that were once required, such as:

stuffing envelopes,
making phone calls,
organizing and running a phone tree to make those phone calls,
balancing a checkbook,
preparing a financial or treasurer's report,
learning/mastering the skills of talking people into volunteering,
and many others,

are today completely avoidable.

Socialization versus Stimulation

Probably you were taught in school, or learned along the way, that "People are social animals"? This was well-known, observable if not self-evident, and generally accepted. But we may be witnessing the falsification of this.

Posit this and see what you think: historically, practical considerations hid the fact that what we really want, is not socialization, but stimulation. Used to be, that to get the one (stimulation) you had to have the other (socialization), and to get that latter, you had to put in your share, join in, do the work, do your part. This was true for millennia. But not any more.

Nowadays we see that many humans offered stimulation without any ("real") socialization at all, take it. Folks live in the bedroom or on the couch, binge-watching or scrolling through feeds, having pizza delivered. Others do go out but carry the show with them on their phones, to which they dedicate all their attention, oblivious to their surroundings and their would-be peers (they're not peers if you never interact with 'em, never pay attention to or notice them).

Satisfaction - meeting like minds

It would be hard to say how many people with Mensa-level I.Q. behave like that, because we tend not to meet them. Others who'd qualify do want to socialize. But that doesn't mean adopting Mensa's ways, or desiring Mensa's means, if those ways and means are outdated. Living in the real world as it is, they may well prefer to do so:

on their own terms, and
in light of the reality of today.

They're aware of the current situation, the changed landscape. What works and what's necessary in the world, is different from what once was but is no longer.

One thing that hasn't changed: generally, we humans who do enjoy socializing, most enjoy the company of people like ourselves. We like to be and interact with folks, with whom we have something in common, or feel are "like us". The likeness - and/or the liking - can be a commonality of religion, political leanings, race/ethnicity, interests, personal temperament, age, sex, nation, language, or in Mensa's case, level of cognitive function or ability.

Mensa of course exists in part to facilitate and support just this, and this part of Mensa must remain the same (if not, there would be no Mensa). Perhaps an AI companion/chatbot will become a better companion to a Mensan, than another Mensan; this is not certain. Also, other high-I.Q. societies exist. But for the time being, there is a need or desire, that we as Mensa can address and satisfy.

Technology of course offers us many ways to:

socialize one-on-one, as a group and as smaller sub-groups e.g. "breakout sessions",
carry out decision-making, and/or collaboration, when necessary.

Mensa local groups already use Zoom, Google Meet, and/or others for meetings and book clubs. Limiting factors in meeting this way include:

Lots of people/Mensans are already tired of on-line meetings, for example from their workday.
It's riskier to discuss things in confidence, online - and/or it feels that way: people are less comfortable, less willing to discuss certain topics.
Though modern-day tools are free, and could (and do, to an increasing extent) obviate need for roles (e.g. treasurer) and effort, the effort required cannot be reduced all the way to zero. Not all participants can be freeloaders, doing nothing but thumbing, or just dialing/clicking in.
The tools listed above, by themselves, don't necessarily address - much less solve - the irascibility problem.

The irascibility problem

Compared to other clubs, Mensa appears to have a higher than normal percentage of fractious, obnoxious, rude, and/or unpleasant members; members who enjoy conflict, a fight. Most Mensans seem to recognize this. Reasons commonly put forward include:

They've built their whole identity around being a "smart person" and/or smarter than everyone else. They can strengthen this life position or self-image by putting others down, or ticking them off, scoring points, engendering conflict.
Mensa-level folk aren't forced as much by our environment, to be nice, decent, cooperative. We can get away with being nastier, less patient - people will put up with this, and us, to a greater extent. A boss may say "I know he's a jerk but I can't fire him, he's the only one on this team who can perform that task."
Filters that other organizations use up-front to eliminate people, don't exist in Mensa. The role of ombudsman and the expulsion process are after-the-fact, after damage has already been done. So for example, an intelligent person who fails the pre-admission-offer interview that Harvard (quietly) uses, can still get in to Mensa.
Mensans are more diverse generally; perhaps more likely to be "oddballs." A specific instance of our general diversity could be, greater diversity of agreeableness, meaning, higher proportion of those persons normally considered unpleasant.
Maybe Mensans are less willing or able to "suffer fools gladly."

A complete discussion of causes, reasons, and factors is beyond the scope of this article. Victor Serebriakoff in his book Mensa offers some ideas, this is a common topic among Mensans, we could probably extend the above list. But for planning purposes it's enough to say, the situation's probably unavoidable. From our own experience we know that, lacking some sort of filtering or exclusion mechanism, a (any?) sufficiently large group of Mensans is likely to include some people that others just don't want to interact with.

This problem appears to affect Mensa in every area of function. So, for example, at/on the national level, Mensa lost - or perhaps "settled" - an expensive lawsuit when a disaffected and expelled Mensan showed up at an Annual Gathering. Organizationally there was nothing Mensa could do. He was a paid guest at the hotel and had the right to roam the halls and public areas, chat with Mensans, etc. Perhaps the personalities were combative; the facts are unclear. Certainly poor judgement was exercised. Better to have an organizational structure that could have avoided the problem entirely.

Age

One Mensan told me that when she joined, she and her Mensa buddies were in their 20s. Then, the same group of Mensans just kept on meeting, as they aged into their 30s, and 40s, 50s, and 60s. As they all got older, so did the club.

This is a problem not only for the obvious reason of a local group aging, shrinking, and dying out. Mensa does - or should - truly provide a way for high-I.Q. people to find one another, relatively easily. This is a value! Young Mensans who do stay with Mensa, attest to this.

For a membership organization to continue to exist, we need to augment roughly 5% of our membership annually. To prevent the "aging out" effect we must recruit younger people - in our case, probably Mensans in their teens, twenties and thirties. All three age bands are important. We can't focus on only teens 'cause they move away, go to college, get into other things, don't need Mensa and drop out. Similarly, we can't just focus on recruiting persons in their 20s: they may be in college or prone to big life changes, also liable to dropping out.

In many local groups this has not been done; Mensans are getting older if not downright elderly, so we need to play catch-up.

Generally it seems, from Mensa Marketing personnel and from our own experience, that Mensa actually does a decent job of recruiting, including bringing in younger Mensans. But we then fail to retain. A presumption is that we don't offer something (anything?) they want, but also there's the common scenario, which I've witnessed personally: the new or candidate Mensan in their 20s or 30s comes to a meeting, sees all these old people, and never comes back. One suggestion has been that if only we had been able to get all the Mensans in their 20s to come together at once, they might have enjoyed each others' company and stayed. One suggestion I've heard: "stage" admissions such that candidates aren't admitted until there are some minimum number of them from their same age group. But that by itself seems a bit unworkable, and maybe even a little odd.

There are some behavioral things that could conceivably ameliorate this "age mismatch" scenario but they probably won't work. It's common for some old people, including some Mensans, to discuss their own and others' health problems. This is a huge turn-off to at least some young people. But suggesting to older Mensans that we not make our health problems a topic of conversation, generates great resistance. "I like hearing and talking about health problems" said one. "It's generational," said another Mensan (in her 50s), "your generation hates talking about health problems but mine likes to do so."

Similarly, elder/senior Mensans have been known to balk at meeting up in a louder club that might be attractive to younger people: "That doesn't work for me, it bothers my hearing aid."

It is actually possible to split Mensa into three clubs. Rotary does this: InterAct is for Rotarians up to age 18, Rotaract for Rotarians up to age 40, and Rotary for all ages. Younger Rotarians have the option of choosing whether to join their age-specific group, or regular Rotary. It's a possibility for us, an option, Mensa could do this - formally or informally. We do already have Young Mensans, a gifted youth program, and a Mensa Honor Society.

This may not work so very well for a small club - for example, Northern Michigan Mensa consists of around 70 Mensans. So, a two-prong solution could possibly work:

focus on recruiting younger members, and even more importantly,
ensure that there's a defined "young person" contingent for these younger Mensans to feel at home in. For a smaller local group this would probably necessitate cross-local-group collaboration; for example a defined network of and for all younger Mensans in Michigan.

Of course both younger and older Mensans should be welcome to all local group activities.

Our strengths & assets

The above sections outline some challenges that Mensa faces. But Mensa's not doomed, hopelessly overmatched, nor are we a fossil. We have some assets:

Something in common: Smart people enjoy conversing with other smart people. There's an ease, a commonality; also a reward. Like the Mensa promotional poster says: "When I attend a Mensa meeting I know I'll have an intelligent conversation."

Lots of things not in common - diversity: Mensa uniquely offers a special kind of diversity. If you're a doctor or physicist you may work with intelligent people, but they all have the same professional interest. In Mensa you can and will encounter smart people from all walks of life, backgrounds, races, etc.

We are the premier brand, the "go-to" organization, for high-I.Q. persons. Some folks don't know about Mensa, but this may be addressed with promotion. And folks who do know of an organization of and for smart people, it's Mensa they know of. We fairly regularly make the news.
When we get it right, new Mensans' reactions tend to be positive. Mensans do and can find a home, in Mensa - the group "works" and so does the idea.

Forward path 1 - voluntary association

This can be a strategy to resolve both:

the "old-timer" problem, and

the "irascible members" problem.

In general we need to provide Mensans the ability to pick and choose whom they/we socialize, cooperate, mingle, and/or partner with. Especially due to the irascibility problem, the model of fixed groups consisting of any Mensan that wants to show up, is flawed. The Slavic aphorism "a spoonful of tar spoils a barrel of honey" does apply; so does the principle "bad drives out good." Even the simple idea of having Mensans over for dinner or a backyard party, occasions an inordinate amount of rules. For example, the Metropolitan Washington Mensa's "Copious Code" (a compendium of prior decisions, similar to American Mensa's Actions Still In Effect) goes into some pretty extensive detail, spelling out all sorts of potential offenses and infractions. That could really all be boiled down to:

don't act like a jerk, and
don't invite jerks over.

We may or may not like this fact, but nowadays people don't feel obligated to put up with others. They may have good reasons, bad reasons, dumb reasons, or even no reason: "I just don't like him/her" accompanied by not wanting to participate with that person. This aspect of current-day reality applies generally.

Certain problems are naturally solved by humans, simply by the principle of voluntary association. Consider for example the freeloader problem, within a circle of friends who enjoy inviting one another over for dinner. If Freddy the Freeloader never invites the rest of the group over, the problem may be naturally solved simply by group members ceasing to invite Freddy over for dinner. There doesn't even need to be any kind of group decision-making process - not even an informal one. Nor does there need to be any spirit of rejection, any rancor, any ill will. Some group members may still invite Freddy for their own reasons (perhaps he's really nice, or a sage who's taken a vow of poverty, or is the life of the party), while others don't. Maybe Freddy gets invited to/included in other activities, just not invited over for dinner.

If everyone in the group is aware of this principle of voluntary association, and if it's applied judiciously, thoughtfully, and kindly, this can work. Of course hurt feelings can occur: preschools and elementary schools often have a "no invitations" policy to address just this. Other negative outcomes could include cliques, ossification, and/or fragmentation. So this principle needs to be counterbalanced by a general prescription for and presumption of inclusivity - we must actively work to get and keep other Mensans involved in what we're doing, enjoying. But not to an extent or in such a way as to ruin others' experiences. Where and how to draw the line? In the end that must be up to each Mensan, either as an individual or as a group member.

There is no formula here because so much depends on individual personalities. But a principle that Mensans can form informal groups that are open to other Mensans by invitation only, is probably going to be necessary. You as a Mensan are entitled to participate in all activities of category X, but there are also "friend groups", organized organically and informally.

Really, this is just a natural part of life. With exceptions - e.g. workplace or family functions - people expect, enjoy, and exercise this freedom.

Forward paths 2 and 3: having fun, and doing good

Having fun

I've heard from a fellow Mensan: "I don't want to belong to a club that's just a social club for smart people." The Mensan who said this was active in running the Northern Michigan Mensa scholarship program, and supporting the Region 3 scholarship program; she was also active outside Mensa, a dedicated volunteer.

When I recounted this to some other Mensans, they countered, or responded, that they're quite happy to be part of a social club for smart people and don't need/want to do volunteer work.

And of course some Mensans want, or are willing, to do both.

Generally membership organizations start out as ways to socialize, to have fun. Or they develop that way. For example - back in the earliest "old days" - Mensa was first conceived as a elite group that could advise, for example, on weighty matters of state and policies. That conception went out the window right away and Mensa became a discussion and socialization group; a way to have and enjoy "meetings of the minds."

Mensa of course provides an excellent way to meet smart people one-on-one. As LocSec part of my job - as I have designed it - involves telephoning members. Very often it's very enjoyable, for me and for them (or at least, so they tell me).

On the other hand, some people enjoy the "buzz" of socializing as a group; and this of course may only be gotten from, well, socializing as a group.

Doing Good

I'm not claiming that this is any sort of natural law, nor any unavoidable development, say, of "group mind." But I have noticed that often, organizations end up taking on "do-gooder" projects, efforts, or missions. Really this seems initially to just spring up spontaneously from individual members; often, others agree and are willing to go along, play a part, help out.

One last look forward

I spent my (daytime) career working in computing, or in "Information Technology" or "IT" as it came to be called. In that world it was a common statement that we did not create systems - even though that's just what we did - but rather, we supported and enabled business processes. (Also we enabled changes to business processes, and facilitated other adaptations to reality, such as keeping things running after mergers).

Technology has changed the landscape and that has hurt Mensa in some ways; like, it's hard to recruit a treasurer from a generation that largely lacks any experience carefully managing and documenting the use of money. People use or employ other people, and/or systems, to handle their money, nowadays. Balancing a checkbook was an entry-to-the-adult-world skill but a quick look at your smart phone app now tells you your balance.

At the same time, Mensa has been able to use to our benefit technologies, such as online meetings and email. There are other technologies-combined-with-practices that can support the kinds of socializing, cooperation, collaboration that people want.

One practice, that you may already be familiar with if you've traveled or purchased things online, is a system of reciprocal rating. These vary. Airbnb, booking.com, IMDB, eBay, and Amazon, for example, feature ratings of properties, movies, products, and vendors. Presuming the reviews are accurate and the customer takes care, this can save money, time, and disappointment/dissatisfaction.

Perhaps lesser known, unless you've been an Airbnb host(ess) yourself, is that Airbnb hosts may, and do, also rate the guests who'd stayed with them. For in this case, the "customer" is more than a customer. The person who might stay in your home, could conceivably do a lot of damage to your property, and/or ruin the experience of other guests if you simultaneously host others. (eBay also used to support similar functionality but dropped vendor's ability to rate customers.) In the case of Airbnb, there is a more reciprocal relationship going on when it's more than just a straight-up vendor/customer transaction. For example if a potential guest has a history of unreasonable demands, expectations, or requirements, becoming enraged and vindictive when they feel slighted or dis-served, and submitting terrible reviews; a host might like to know about this.

In the past, say in a small town, the reputation of a person like this would quickly spread; and both individuals and the general community would adapt. The voluntary association principle I advocate above, would be automatic.

In Mensa the principle of membership open to all who qualify according to our one criterion, could in theory mean that a new Mensan could come to your open house and literally ruin the party. Without some information-transmittal system (could be a rating system, could be just word-of-mouth) it'd also be possible for such a person to serially attend - and potentially ruin - other events. Or even cause worse damage. In a serious enough situation, Mensa could - and arguably, morally should - be found accountable for failure to act on information known to the group; for example if things every got really out of hand.

The details of how a combination of systems, communications, and policies, could achieve both 1) inclusivity and invitation, and 2) discernment, identification, and "legitimate discrimination" (i.e. it is legitimate to discriminate, for example, between good and evil, "trusted other" and threat, pleasant person and jackass), are beyond the scope of this document. My intent here is to point out that it's not only possible, but arguably, vital. We lose members when we fail to address this particular fact of reality.

Summary

Mensa's supposed to be (among other things) a pleasant place for people like ourselves to enjoy "meetings of the mind." It's up to us to make it that way. I believe that there is demand - young people have told me so - and that it's possible to meet that demand. To accomplish this, we need to change some of our ways, dismantle or simply abandon some structures, systems, and ways-we-do-things-around-here, in light of recent and ongoing changes in social reality. This means figuring out what does still work and should be retained, what needs modification, and what needs to be junked altogether.

On top of all that we need to figure out, create, implement, and maintain new ways of meeting, socializing, collaborating. I think it's possible. I hear and get good ideas from other Mensans who detail their success stories - often when I try those same ideas, they work.

One last note. I myself am new at, and to, all of this, so my own personal observation may not be accurate. But it seems to me like some of the best ideas come from peers. I have gotten value from some information that's been passed on by Mensa's National Office, also some valuable referrals. But the bulk of the good ideas, tips, tricks, and suggestions, have come from regular Mensans in the trenches. The value I've gotten, has been largely peer-to-peer.