[From the March, 1981 San Francisco Regional Mensa Intelligencer.]
   
 

If Mensa can be all that it already is—and more—why settle for less?

Having served Mensa in one editorial capacity or another, including a national one, for a total of seven years, I did not think I was particularly naive about Mensans.  But I have been genuinely surprised—more so, I confess, than my colleagues Darrell Bross and  Sander Rubin—at the controversy stimulated by "Renewing the Promise of Mensa." In my opinion the "controversy" consists in some misunderstanding, deliberate or otherwise, of our message and considerable loading onto it of clichés left over from past debates.

We did not argue against fun and frivolity in Mensa.  We love it, and at least one of us owes his Mensa reputation to it.

We did not appeal to Mensans to be more serious.  On the contrary, we proposed that many members might enjoy Mensa more than they do.

We love Mensa exactly as it is and would be among the first to defend it against gratuitous changes.

What we did say, in essence, was this: Many Mensans join expecting more than they actually find—including some for whom the reality is nevertheless rewarding.  If Mensa can be all that it already is—and more—why settle for less?  If a larger proportion of our members can find what they want in Mensa, without taking anything at all away from those who are already happy with it, why not?  Those who are currently satisfied need do nothing different; those with greater expectations may want to find others similarly inclined and work together to supplement their Mensa experience.  This is in keeping with one of Mensa's fundamental informal principles: "If you don't find what you want, start it yourself."  The widespread appeal was, we felt, justified by statistical indications that about a third of the membership falls into the not-quite-satisfied category.

One critic wrote that it is the publicity brochure that is wrong and not the Mensans.  Perfectly true. I, for one, have been mildly agitating for a completely rewritten brochure almost since I joined.  But this does not alter the fact that there are many Mensans already in the organization—and many others who have lapsed—whose expectations are influenced, if not created, by the publicity.  If there is no inherent reason for them to be disappointed, why disappoint them?

It is worth noting that not one critic, to my knowledge, has taken issue with the basic premise that many incoming members' expectations are not met.  Rather, their arguments have taken a collective position against doing anything about the fact.  I find this lack of generosity uncharacteristic of Mensans and somewhat baffling.  Renewing the Promise of Mensa poses no threat to anyone; it is simply a recommendation that Mensans with a sense of that promise revive their earliest hopes for Mensa and begin the process of fulfilling them.

In San Francisco Regional Mensa, much has already been done, chiefly as a result of the energy and commitment of Darrell Bross. Discussions on the "Promise of Mensa" theme have attracted many members, among them some who had never cared to participate before, and have stimulated much focused thought about the quality of the organization.  Plans for "salons" of the classic European variety are under way.  Ideas for new meeting formats that would provoke more enriching discussion than the  party or lecture style meeting are being generated.  Not the least of the benefits is the awareness among some new members that what they hope for in Mensa is important even to some of the old-timers.

Meanwhile, the parties go on as before, and we enjoy them as much as ever—or perhaps more, knowing that they represent only one level of the depth of Mensa's potential and that those who want more have a chance of finding it.

[Index]