Talk:Mensa International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mensa International article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Mensa International#Mensa demographics

Hello ... I removed the reference

Baby Genius: Intellectual Signs Begin Early. Retrieved on 25/6/2007.

with the edit summary "rm evaporated link" because it was a bad URL, and Some Other Editor reverted my deletion with the edit summary "rv unexplained deletion of reference" ... I subsequently discovered that the {{cite web}} tag was malformed (with fields duplicated from a poor copy&paste edit), so I corrected it and found that this is what it should have been ...

Britse peuter heeft IQ van 152. De Standaard (2007-06-22). Retrieved on 2007-06-25.

Ultimately, the reference turned out to be in violation of Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, specifically:

Anywho, I have removed the reference for the second time, since it is bogus, so please don't revert it again ... Happy Editing! —72.75.70.207 (talk · contribs) 13:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Members

I have deleted this newly added section for several reasons that have been arrived at through consensus, and am listing some history here for background and discussion ... some of the background is presented in My contributions - a tale of research.

There used to be a List of famous members of Mensa, which was deleted (24 August 2006) and replaced by Category:Members of Mensa ... which also was later deleted (13 March 2007).

The AfD and CfD discussions make it clear that establishing "membership" is problematic, and the consensus is that these kinds of lists are a Bad Idea, since the best way of maintaining them (i.e., a Category) has also been rejected ... please do not attempt to create this list again ... if you want to know who some of the members are/were, check Special:Whatlinkshere/Mensa International.

Happy Editing! —72.75.70.207 (talk · contribs) 12:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aren't the entry requirements a little bit low

The entry requirement of 132 on the Stanford-Binet seems a little low to me. That would be two standard deviations above the average, granted 95% of the population should be within two standard deviations of the average and if the curve is symmetrical (which it isn't as there is the concept of zero intelligence and infinite intelligence), the two sigma point may represent the 97.5% mark.

However, more to the point, when I attended a Mensa proctored test back in 1988, they gave me two tests, one which I believe was a WISC test (the first multiple choice question was are you a boy or a girl?) and another that was graded in percentile; I placed 99th percentile on the latter but only scored 149 on the former, the letter that I received from Mensa Canada stated that the 99th percentile result qualified me for membership but that the 149 score was just shy of the mark, of course it only takes one result to qualify. Point is, how can the entry requirement be 132 and a score of 149 be considered shy of the mark? Besides, I've met plenty of people who have had their IQ tested in the 130 range and they're a fairly dense lot. Obviously, the results of one particular type of test is not directly comparable to that of another and the list of what qualifies for what tests is far more detailed than presented on the web but an IQ of 132 just seems low.

--Jwhou 15:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really related to the article... The Parsnip! 15:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


Let's see, the article is about Mensa and mentions the criteria for membership as a simple 132 IQ on the Stanford Binet scale when in fact it's a far more convoluted comparisons of tests with undisclosed normalization procedures between the various scores as evidenced by the letter I received in '88 which stated that a 149 score was just shy of qualifying. How is the information in the article not being entirely true despite being consistent with references not related to the article?

--Jwhou 18:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, because it sounds like you're trying to prove some kind of point that Mensa entrance requirements are unfair. If that's the case, shouldn't your argument be directed towards Mensa admissions instead of posted on the talk page of an internet encyclopedia? Wikipedia doesn't make determinations regarding fair vs unfair, it only (primarily) states facts that are backed up by reputable sources. On the other hand, if you can find reputable sources to back up your assertion that Mensa entrance requirements are more complicated than a simple score of 132 on Stanford Binet, then perhaps the article should include a section about that. The Parsnip! 21:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the article clearly states:

Because different tests are scaled differently, it is not meaningful to compare raw scores between tests, only percentiles. For example, the minimum accepted score on the Stanford-Binet is 132, while for the Cattell it is 148.[1]

  1. ^ Qualifying test scores. American Mensa.
That's a cited reference to Mensa's own entrance requirements page ... please, let's not waste any more time with this. Happy Editing! —72.75.96.83 (talk · contribs) 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Userboxxen

See below for a Userbox you can use here if a Mensan. I have no problem with any Mensan using as is but you should probably put your membership no. in a comment or something. Lycurgus 19:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Mensa International was a Mensa member.



I believe {{User:UBX/Mensa}} is more common; there are issues involved in using anything with any corporate/organizational logo. Logos in userboxes are generally not considered fair use, even though they may be used in article pages. I know, it's not quite as nifty, but them's the rules. samwaltz 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
M
 This user is a member of Mensa.



Don't forget {{User:Blast san/userboxes/User IQ}}, e.g., {{User:Blast san/userboxes/User IQ|in the <u>bottom half</u> of the top 2%}} will produce
IQ This user's Intelligence Quotient is in the bottom half of the top 2%.
Happy Editing! —72.75.96.83 (talk · contribs) 14:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
What about this one, for us members of the unwashed masses? Template:User Densa member —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flunkerton (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 April 2008

[edit] Update

OK, boys & girls … I've modified {{User:UBX/Mensa}} to use the GDFL version of the Mensa logo from Wikimedia Commons.

M
 This editor is a member of Mensa.



Happy Editing! —141.156.234.101 (talk · contribs) 18:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Schotz! Looks like it wasn't GDFL after all, so it was deleted. :-( —72.75.89.38 (talk · contribs) 20:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Some Other Editor uploaded another version of the logo, so I added it to the userbox again. :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 01:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You can't use copyrighted images in userboxes, so I've removed it yet again. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New page: List of fictional characters by IQ

I'm considering a page List of fictional characters by IQ. Yah, I just watched last week's EUReKA this morning; Zoe Carter had her IQ tested and scored 157. I'd propose listing by intelligence where the specific work has explictly (and canonically) mentioned a character's IQ. Anyone who's simply listed as a member of Mensa would be placed around 130, with the disclaimer (Member of Mensa, IQ 128+). Give the page a see also link from this page, from IQ, etc. Thoughts? samwaltz 20:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally bogus ... Lisa Simpson, Rodney McKay, and other fictional characters who are "announced" members of Mensa already have links to this article ... using any number without qualification is also bogus since a 132 on one test is like a 148 on another, which is why only percentiles are used ...

Being in Mensa means never having to tell anyone your IQ.

We don't need another smeggy list of "fictional characters by category" ... there's also the WP:RS issue of needing to provide a citation (i.e., the name of the episode or story where their membership or IQ is mentioned) or else it will be flooded with "they're smart enough that they should be listed" (like Sherlock Holmes) and other unsupported entries (can you find a citation for Hannibal Lecter?) ... besides, it will just be deleted by an AfD in a few months, anyway, like Category:Members of Mensa was recently after being around for less than a year ... Happy Editing! —72.75.96.83 (talk · contribs) 22:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Category:Members of Mensa should be reinstated, personally. That bit of deletionism strikes me as a bit silly. With some careful referencing, establishing membership is clear. This may mean leaving out notable people who are members until a suitable reference can be obtained, but that's how Wikipedia works. It's always a work in progress. The Parsnip! 03:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually the one who first populated that category when it was created (after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous members of Mensa (2nd nomination) was closed), but I guess times change, and the consensus shifted ... I had been doing change patrol to validate new additions, and even researched some with the help of a fellow Mensan at the Library of Congress (see User talk:72.75.85.159#My contributions - a tale of research) ... unfortunately, I don't have the energy right now to champion that crusade a second time, although I would passively support its recreation ... I'm still ticked that I was not notified of the CfD discussion in time to provide background and sway opinions. —72.75.96.83 14:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It's always possible for consensus to change. Eventually I'll ask for a deletion review, too busy at the moment though. The Parsnip! 17:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
If you succeed with a deletion review, then use Special:Whatlinkshere/Mensa International to repopulate it, but you'll have to search each article for relevance (and to make sure they're not fictional characters!), e.g., the Stephen Hawking article says that "he took the Mensa International test to verify that his intellectual abilities were intact" after an accident, but it does not claim that he was ever a member ... I had an admonition about citations for new entries on the Category page, but grandfathered articles that claimed membership even if they were uncited ... some had dubious citations, like their IMDb biography (Ellen Muth was one example, but now it has a good citation) ... there was also language on either the Category or the Talk page about (a) Mensa's official policy to neither confirm nor deny anyone's current or past membership, (b) deceased and former members are allowed in the category, i.e., it is not restricted to "currently active" members, and (c) additions to the category without Attribution for membership in the article could be reverted under the aegis of Biographies of living persons (simply enter "rm cat per WP:BLP" in the edit summary.) —72.75.96.83 20:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

My late father was a Mensan, a fact that contributed to his self-defeating hubrism and concomitant social ineptitude and the rude awakening that followed which he had a hard time dealing with when it occurred in mid-life. Thus, the question I have is whether this organization really measures "intelligence" fully or just focuses on traditional academic knowledge based too heavily on the literacy paradigm. For example, the puffed up prep school/Ivy League dandy of Jack London lore whose real level of knowledge is tragically exposed in the tough wilderness where wizened illiterates know better comes to mind. Clearly the areas of knowledge tested merit measurement, but isn't there more to it, in measuring a human's knowledge and skill, to say nothing of moral worth, than these topics. Surely mechanical skills, to say nothing of those related to basic survival, are pertinent. It bears keeping in mind that literacy was a skill relegated to the academic guild of the clergy in the Middle Ages, a social group, unlike serfs and peasants, that could never survive on its own. Moreover, more complex manual skills, like stone masonry, were generally handed down orally, as is still done to this day to some extent. Finally the idea that these "IQ" type academic tests, which measure certain learned information and behaviors are somehow, without more, absolute indicators of an individual's aptitude seems dubious. I will concede that those who have scored high on this test, however, have achieved something and reflected some discipline, obviously, if that is viewed, like the SAT or any other academic test, within its proper context and not as the ultimate determinant of human "intelligence" or smarts of the classroom or the street. Otherwise the outcome of the social darwinism sometimes promoted by certain individuals from this milieu may not be what they had in mind. Tom Cod 04:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a (hopefully) helpful word: please note that this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mensa International article, not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject (see top of this page). Thank you. Nobody of consequence 15:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision wars and neutral POV

I have intervened in a silly little edit war, trying to find simple and neutral compromise that reflected the citation. I asked that we build on each other’s contributions rather than just delete them within minutes. Mine was reverted instantly stating that I was putting forward a personal point of view. I was not.

(That Mensa has an objective to be apolitical is a neutral statement – whether or not it achieves that objective is a POV).

There appears to be some unofficial “policing” of this article to keep it expressing a minority’s choice of words.

I believe those minorities are members of Mensa. Members of Mensa have also published Mensa websites and all the substantive citations are to those websites. There is a danger that this could possibly provoke accusations of a misuse of Wiki by Mensa in order to and ensure that Mensa is presented in the way it would wish to be seen.

Is everybody assuming good faith?

There are many adverse citations possible if anyone wishes to publish them. For example there is the somewhat famous statement made with a Mensa periodical that describes Mensa as “A collection of society’s misfits gathered together to squabble over their lack of a common interest.” Do we really want to provoke that sort of citation? Rolo Tamasi (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If the criticisms are notable and verifiable then they should definitely be present in this article. --ElKevbo (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Rolo Tamasi (talk · contribs) is risking violation of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule (as are several IP accounts) in the face of reverts by multiple editors ... to quote from the cited reference, i.e., Mensa's own constitution:

Mensa encompasses members representing many points of view. Consequently, Mensa as an organization shall not express an opinion as being that of Mensa, take any political action other than the publication of the results of its investigations, or have any ideological, philosophical, political, or religious affiliations.

so the reverts over "Mensa is an apolitical" versus "Mensa aims to be apolitical" are moot, since "aims to be" is a point of view, while "is an" states a fact.
OTOH, the statement

Joining is by a simple test or the provision of evidence and thus the most significant demographic influence is a personal reason to join.

is clearly an unsubstantiated personal opinion, and has no place in the article ... and if you feel that attempts by admitted members of an article's subject organization to enforce Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines represents a conflict of interest violation, then take it up at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard ... Happy Editing! 72.75.79.128 (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don’t agree that it is a POV, it is substantiated by the references already within the article. You appear overly sensitive do you invite everyone who may express a concern about appearances to take formal action? Looking back in here I find I am not the first to express these concerns. Let us try to work with mutual respect rather than aggression. Rolo Tamasi (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The IS v. CLAIMS TO BE revert war

Simple solution: The Mensa Constitution, used as a reference, does not have either statement within it. Rather, parts of the Constitution are used to synthesize the conclusion summarized in the offending passage, which is a violation of the Wikipedia's synthesis policy. The passage has thus been deleted. Problem solved. TechBear (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

While looking at the Mensa Constitution, I fixed the opening statement of the Mensa Goals section to accurately reflect the actual text being referenced. I have also added the actual text from which the above deleted synthesis was derived. This should, hopefully, end the revert war. If you have any complaints, PLEASE DISCUSS HERE BEFORE REVERTING THE ARTICLE. TechBear (talk)

[edit] Berrill's nationality

I have just seen the change of Berrill from an Australian to Afro-American. In researching this the only evidence that I can find is the he was English, living in London. Does anyone have a good authority; is the Australian reference a Mensa myth? Rolo Tamasi (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That was just vandalism by a Single-purpose account named Niheec (talk · contribs) ... ignore their edits. :-) —141.156.234.101 (talk · contribs) 15:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that always appeared likely - after all he was a member of the group that famously considered whether or not being white should be a requirement for membership! However, having found a reference stating that he was English and held an Australian lawyer's qualification I wondered if there has been some mixup. Rolo Tamasi (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of the Figure Reasoning Test (FRT) in the article body

Since Jounii said to "check the discussion," it seems a good idea to actually start a discussion on the matter.

First and foremost: The article mentions two tests, the Stanford-Binet and the Cattell. The former is mentioned as an example of the type of test Mensa uses to gauge an applicant's qualifications to join; the latter is mentioned in conjunction with the Stanford-Binet as examples of how different tests can provide different scores that meet the minimum. The page given as the reference to this information provides 29 different tests and clearly states that this list is not exhaustive. Please explain why the FRT deserves special mention while, say, the Otis-Lennon does not. TechBear (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note that Jounii (talk · contribs) created the "article" for Figure Reasoning Test (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) today, solely to link to this article ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.142 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh sorry, it seems that I didn't save my start of discussion.
The FRT deserves special mention because in many countries, there is only one test which national Mensa uses in qualification events, and that test is Figure Reasoning Test. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, India, Pakistan and Singapore to name a few use only FRT in their test events. I do not know any countries that still uses Cattell&Cattell in their testing, many countries are changing or have already changed their old test to FRT (Link to Mensa Singapore says that all Mensas are going to change to FRT). So I think the C&C is less relevant in this article than FRT.
And that I created article about FRT is not relevant to this, it's stub but I'm going to add stuff there when I have more time.
Jounii —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jounii (talk • contribs) 22:11, 26 March 2008
I don’t think you need justify it, it is relevant and authoritatively cited. It is a shame that some are apparently unable to read the easy languages that state that. However I suggest you translate the appropriate sentence in each of the non English references (or use bable fish or whatever) and repost them.
I think those who would delete your posting are the people who need to justify their actions. Rolo Tamasi (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, why does this one test need to be singled out? The one reference you provide is an undated "President's Message" on the website of one national Mensa organization; it states that Singapore will be switching to the FRT. No mention is made in the reference to any other country. The fact that other national Mensa organizations might use different tests is already stated in the article. So again, why does this one test merit special mention over and above all of the other tests that national Mensa organizations use? Until and unless you can explain that, I don't think it should be included. And Rolo, the article as it stands already represents a consensus; the onus of explanation falls on the person who is making changes, not on the person seeking to prevent changes. If this addition can be justified, I will let it stand. Not until then, however. TechBear (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Clearly the article does not have concensus, there is a long history of dissent.Rolo Tamasi (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Can't you read? In Singapore Mensa website, the Chairman of Mensa Singapore clearly states: "Mensa International’s Supervisory Psychologist had decided that all Mensa chapters will switch to the FRT." Also those other links I provided tells that all scandinavian Mensas are also using FRT. All national Mensas which used Raven had to change to FRT last year, so nowdays FRT is one of the most popular test used in national test events. Tell me one country except American Mensa which uses Cattell&Cattell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jounii (talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia's policies on Reliable Sources and Verifiability. If this is an actual policy of Mensa International, then you should be able to provide a citation from a primary source, ie from Mensa International itself. Also, I am pretty sure that International does not have the authority to issue such declarations: under their charters, national organizations are independent groups associated under International's umbrella. As such, they and not International have the authority to decide what tests will be used and what scores will mark the thresholds.
Why should the article only be able to publish Mensa International official policy? Despite the content of the article Wiki should not be a vehicle to publish Mensa's view of itself. If you are drawing a distinction between Mensa and Mensa International (and there is one) then maybe the article should be substantially re-written to only cover Mensa International and anothe article should be created entitled "Mensa".Rolo Tamasi (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
But let us suppose that this unnamed Supervisory Psychologist has, in fact, issued a recommendation to accept the Figure Reasoning Test, and that the Singapore national organization has decided to implement that recommendation. You still have not addressed the crux of my objection, which is: Why should this test be singled out for special mention? The website for Mensa USA gives 29 tests -- with no mention of the FRT -- and states that the list is not exhaustive. The website for Mensa Singapore, Mensa UK and Mensa France (the only ones I checked) do not give any similar list, but do allow applicants to submit previous IQ test results for evaluation. Mensa UK explicitly states that they use the Cattell III B and the Cattell Culture Fair III A tests. So again: please justify why the FRT deserves to be singled out. TechBear (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I dont think it has been "singled out" Stanford-Binet and Cattell remain even after lack of respect for other editors views that FRT should also be included. Maybe we should delete all references?Rolo Tamasi (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The Supervisory Psychologist ordered all national Mensas that use Ravens test to change that to FRT, and recommended others to change to FRT too. Statement about that order is in Mensa World: [1] (only available to members of Mensa). Almost all national Mensas accept results from other IQ-test too, but the point is that almost all Mensas use only one test in their own test events (and that is the way majority of Mensas join, at least in scandinavia), and in many countries that test is the recently calibrated FRT. Btw International Mensa does decide what scores are treshold, it is the famous top 2% from normal distribution. ;) There's actually small differences in that, because some National Mensas use 2% treshold and other "over 2*standard deviation" treshold, and in some tests those treshold differ point or two.
Oh yes, I forgot the Mensa UK, they still use C&C in their test events. But the point is still that the FRT is or soon is if not most used, at least one of the most used tests in national Mensas own testing events, and such I think it is relevant information.
A year ago I tried to ask some kind of list which would tell which test every national Mensa uses in their own testing events, but they wont give it. Maybe I'll try again someday.
Sorry about bad english, english isn't my native language.Jounii (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with those who don't think the reference to FRT is warranted.

The source cited (from 2005) indicates that the Ravens test was to be replaced by FRT, effective July 2006. There's nothing in there about a recommendation to use it. It's just that in cases where the Ravens was used, the FRT was to be used going forward. FRT is a non-verbal, culture-fair test. In American Mensa (of which I am familiar), most who take the admissions test take an English language test, not a culture-fair test. Many also are admitted via tests administered by third parties, such as those mentioned in the article. Only a very small percentage of those admitted take the culture-fair tests. And since half of all Mensa members are in American Mensa, it would be hard to make a generalization without taking American Mensa into account.

I could see mentioning a test if it were the only test used by the organization. That's clearly not the case in Mensa. The only other reason I can see to single out a test is if it is well established and well known in the general public. I think the other tests mentioned in the article meet those criteria, just based on their Wikipedia articles. I don't believe that the FRT does meet those criteria, and even if it did, I don't believe that the sources cited so far back that up. Jwolfe (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The American Mensa has always been bit different than many other Mensas. At least in europe, most people join in mensa by taking IQ-test in Mensas own test event. In Finland, about 99% of all mensans are qualified through Mensas own test event. I do not know any other country which doesn't use culture-fair test in their testing events. There probably are some others too, but not many.
It is true that half of the all Mensa members are in American Mensa, but it is still just one Mensa of one country.--Jounii (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly written in MENSA WORLD ISSUE 4 – 2005:

RAVENS TEST BEING REPLACED BY FIGURE REASONING TEST (FRT) Sara Henrysson Eidvall (Sweden), International Supervisory Psychologist Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices (II) is going to be replaced by a Figure Reasoning Test from German publishers Harcourt-Brace.

Initial announcements scheduled for January 2006, with implementation in July 2006. All national Mensa groups are obligated to replace Ravens with the FRT.Flash gsg (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)