---

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

I begin with Mensa, the semi-famous "high IQ society," because so much of the rest began there -- or at least developed significantly there.

I joined Mensa in mid-1980, hoping primarily to find romance with some bright and delectable woman. I found a lot of candidates qualified in both respects, and developed very enjoyable relationships with some of them. But it took a decade before I found the mild-mannered Mensa maid who turned out to be Superwife. More about her in a moment.

The other thing I wanted from Mensa was intellectual stimulation. I got it. Now, Mensa is foremost a social organization, and few of its activities are specifically designed around stimulating topics; instead, you just put a bunch of Mensans together in a room and enjoy what happens. Mostly, it's ordinary conversation carried on with a bit more wit and depth than you'll find most other places. Some events (speaker meetings, regional and annual gatherings, and the occasional Mensa Colloquium), though, are intended to appease the cravings that some of us have for cutting-edge thought and controversial topics. And you can usually bring up such things in conversation at other Mensa events and find a few like-minded folks to happily while away the hours exploring one audacious tangent after another.

I made a lot of it happen myself. I founded or co-founded a few special interest groups (some think-tank discussion groups, and one to explore my interest in philosophy), contributed think pieces to the local newsletter, and joined the committees that put on our Phoenix Phiesta regional gatherings, the 1983 Annual Gathering we hosted, and the 1984 Mensa Colloquium in Scottsdale.

The biggest kick, though, was editing our local newsletter, Much Ado About Mensa, for three years. When MAAM won the national award for Best Large Group Newsletter after my last year as editor, the presenter explained that no other newsletter was quite as much fun to read.

I never really had a chance to enjoy retirement from editing, for I was almost immediately recruited for a bigger job: editing the Mensa Bulletin, the national magazine of American Mensa, Ltd. In order to keep me around for a while, Mensa turned the previously volunteer editorship into a paying contract job, making me (as far as I know) the only professional Mensan there had ever been up to that time. I enjoyed that job thoroughly for seven and a half years.

My service to Mensa has been spectacularly rewarded. Not only did I get to make a living in a highly charged intellectual atmosphere, but afterward I was awarded a life membership in Mensa and the Distinguished Service Award (which has, over about 35 years in this country, gone to only about 40 people).

I still keep my hand in at the local level. I've spent many terms on the local Executive Committee -- a number as a member at large, and three as LocSec (Local Secretary, this club's equivalent of "President").

Mensa owes its existence to the importance humans place on their minds. We think of them as what distinguishes us from mere animals (arrogant, aren't we!). And we think of how measureable differences among human minds might allow us to distinguish ourselves from others of our own kind.

Egalitarians, hate it though they may, are forced to acknowledge that either intelligence is worthless or more intelligence is better than less (perhaps up to some point beyond which more intelligence is no help to us).

Mensa's first stated aim in its constitution is to "identify and foster intelligence for the benefit of humanity." However, Mensa has always concentrated instead on its third aim: to provide a stimulating social environment for its members. I understand this as a natural emphasis, but I've long been a bit dissatisfied with Mensa's rather weak commitment to that first (and ultimately, most important, I think) aim. I continue to press the point from time to time within Mensa, but lately I've been focusing my efforts on behalf of intelligence elsewhere.

Two areas of effort are paramount. The first of these is to develop an understanding of how our mind works -- a functional understanding of neuropsychology. When the dust settles, I'm convinced, most people will be rather embarrassed to see how much of what they believe about their own processes of judgment and evaluation in ordinary life is radically incorrect. Much research has already been undertaken on systematic errors of judgment we all are susceptible to, stemming from thought processes that psychologists call heuristics and schemata. Other research indicates that our normal conception of our conscious selves as being single, undivided entities is also wrong. Split brain studies show two major functional divisions within our seemingly seamless minds -- and that, I'm convinced, will be the smallest upheaval as we revise our theories about what the mind is and how it works.

Anyone curious about this subject will find these books interesting and helpful: Nature's Mind by Michael Gazzaniga; Matter and Consciousness by Paul M. Churchland; A History of the Mind by Nicholas Humphrey; Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett; Maps of the Mind by Charles Hampden-Turner.

The second area of effort on behalf of intelligence is the identification, development, and husbandry of tools of the mind -- things like language, logic, and the scientific method. In addition to these existing tools, I think we'll need even more desperately to develop techniques to identify the ways in which we deceive ourselves about our processes of thinking, evaluation, and belief formation -- and then other techniques to overcome such self-deceit, identifying and using whichever mental tool is right for the job at hand.

Some of this last bit of stuff may sound cryptic. This is largely because people have never bothered to think about such things before now. I have written a bit about how there are at least three separate mechanisms of judgment humans use (rather than just one as you might naturally think). That discussion is part of my Master's thesis, which I'll have online soon and will link to this page.

Variation and selection: it's a theme that not only belongs to biology, but that crops up almost everywhere you look.

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!" That old saw describes the process of trial and error (vary the nature of your attempts until one is selected as successful by your circumstances), and of the scientific method (discard each variant theory that doesn't fit -- is selected against by -- the facts).

In Nature, not only the outright survival of organisms depends on the selection of variants, but other relationships are defined and refined that way. A species, for example, will constantly try expanding into new territories -- and if one is superior to its current habitat, it will quickly become the primary home.

In addition to the learning processes already mentioned, human behavior includes many other selective mechanisms. Manufacturers will try variations on a successful product (or a brand new one) and success depends on whether or not consumers select such a new product in preference to other things they might spend their money on. Politicians will try to sell voters new schemes for churning out goodies via the political process, and they will be elected only if their sales job is superior to that of competitors.

The list goes on and on. It still amazes me that, given the ubiquitous nature of variation and selection in our experience, that many people still refuse to believe that it could have played a role in our development as a species!

There's really no good reason for there to be disagreement here. People who believe in a creator shouldn't be surprised that science has identified an ingeniously simple tool for creating marvelously complex creatures over what, in cosmic terms, just a matter of days. Those who believe the universe and its denizens (like us) is the natural outgrowth of physical laws operating since the beginning of time now can see how much of it was accomplished.

For anyone interested in learning, from the ground up, what evolutionary theory is all about, by far the best book to begin with is Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. You'll find it in any major bookstore. For a more philosophical approach that's still accessible to lay readers, a truly wonderful book is Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea. And there's another great book that deals with (among other things) the fascinating question of how simple organic molecules first came to replicate themselves: At Home in the Universe by Stuart Kauffman.

Some guy named Van Cleave has written some about evolutionary theory, too. Soon I'll link my Master's thesis, which discusses how evolutionary theory bears on metaethics (essentially the study of what counts as good or bad and how we can tell), to this page.

I took up the formal study of philosophy upon leaving the editorship of the Mensa Bulletin. Considering what to do next, I realized I had been doing philosophy in many ways, and enjoying it immensely -- presiding over arguments in the letters column, admonishing writers to justify their opinions, lobbying for an organizational commitment to fostering the development of tools for the mind, and writing editorials on philosophical topics.

More importantly, though, I had begun charting some exciting territory in philosophy with an April 1988 editorial, "Survival of the Whichest?", which spawned a 1989 monograph, Evolutionary Foundations for Philosophy. My master's thesis continues the exploration -- partly by adding depth to the conceptual analysis, but primarily in showing how aspects of our evolved human nature undermine our attempts to investigate its mysteries.

My primary interests in the field are philosophy of mind, philosophy of science (particularly naturalized epistemology), metaethics, philosophy of language, and political philosophy.

With my M.A. in Philosophy completed (December 1997), I'm applying now to the doctoral program at the University of Arizona for Fall '98. In the meantime, I'm keeping up on my reading, and working on an article or two to keep my hand in.

On Thanksgiving weekend in '95 I married Fran Arnesen, a pharmacist I met through Mensa. I had discarded a lot of otherwise comfortable relationships over the years for lack of the deep compatibility I wanted with my wife -- and the wait was certainly worth it! Our interests and attitudes are incredibly well matched. If you know about the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory, both of us are INTPs. Two days separate our birthdays in May, and we joke about being Gemini "twins".

Both of us are big science fiction buffs, and (owing our relationship to Mensa) it just seemed natural to have a Star Trek theme wedding in conjunction with our local Mensa convention.

We reside in a modest house in "uptown" Phoenix with our Rhodesian Ridgeback dog, Artoo Deetoo (or R2 for her breed and D2 variously for "Dynamic Dog," "Dastardly Demon," "Domesticated Disaster," or whatever else fits at the moment), and twin female Maine Coon Cats, Pandora (who daily lives up to her name) and Schrodinger ("Dinger" for short, and yes, we're certain about that).

Fran is working mightily to break into science fiction and get out of pharmacy. Her first sale, to ANALOG, appeared in last September's issue. She has a revised novelette that she just resubmitted to ANALOG last week, and we have high hopes they'll buy it.

Don't ask me why it took me some 40 years to finally take a firm stand on the proposition that extortion is wrong, even when the government does it. Hell, especially when the government does it!

This part is under construction. I have a Bachelor of Music in Theory from ASU (cum laude), and I have been a working musician, either full-time or part-time, since 1970. I play trumpet, flügelhorn, and valve trombone, and I've even spent time on the road as music director of a show band. Lately I've been having fun with MIDI arrangements on my computer -- some of which you can hear as background sounds (if you're using a compatible browser) on these websites.

Just kidding.... But seriously, folks -- I haven't had time to write this part yet.

I grew up in a National Park Service family, spending my formative years at Mesa Verde, Petrified Forest, and Carlsbad Caverns, where my two younger sisters and I learned a lot about the world of physics and biology that produced us all.

I showed a youthful aptitude for science and mathematics, so after graduating from Phillips Academy (Andover, not Exeter), I went directly to Rice University to study engineering. Immature and disinterested in the field, I beat a retreat into the military after two years, where I played trumpet with the 62nd U.S. Army Band at Fort Bliss, Texas, and the 82nd U.S. Army Band near Stuttgart, Germany.

Returning to the States, I earned my Bachelor of Music degree in Theory (cum laude) from Arizona State University while continuing to work part-time as a musician -- something I still do today.

After graduating, I stayed on at my fraternity (yep, I joined one: Sigma Phi Epsilon) as Resident Advisor and worked on a commission to produce the first new edition of the national fraternity's songbook in over a decade. Some of my original songs myteriously wound up in it....

Then I went on the road that summer with an Elvis impersonator -- I kid you not -- as music director, arranger, and trumpet player. It was fun, and a very well received show, but after a few weeks at Six Flags Over the Midwest it all fell apart because of internal politics.

I came back in need of a job, and got one at Radio Shack. I went on to manage a few computer departments for them -- until they realized I'd never devote my life wholly to the company and forced me to quit by cutting back my hours and such.

By that time, I'd already been doing some direct mail copywriting on the side, and that turned into full-time work just as I needed it. I was editing the local Mensa newsletter and earning some national attention -- and wound up editing the national magazine, the Mensa Bulletin. Since that job had been burning out volunteers for many years, and nobody could handle it for more than a year or two while making a living at something else, they decided to make the editorship a contract position and keep me around for a while.

"A while" turned out to be 7 1/2 years. I was finally outbid by a gal in California with a more impressive professional background in publishing than I had (the latter being none at all). I decided to pursue my interests in philosophy and psychology by going back to school. That was in '93, and I just completed my Master of Arts in Philosophy in December 1997. Now I'm checking out the doctoral program at University of Arizona in Tucson (which, conveniently, is both consistently ranked in the top 10 philosophy programs nationally and especially strong in my areas of interest).

My current projects are putting my master's thesis up on the web and writing a 'fact' article for ANALOG based on the material in my thesis. Oh ... and stuccoing the second half of our house once the weather is consistently keeping temperatures above 40 degrees F.