> The members are in a wide range of occupations. As I have stated before, IQ really doesn't have a lot of bearing on how successful you will be in life. I think self-discipline and a desire to succeed are more likely to get you in a more 'worthwhile' occupation.
>
> I have a high IQ and photographic memory but I am also an artist. I see the world as beautiful colors and ever-changing sounds instead of an endless stream of chores to be accomplished and goals to be met. This is not a trait common among those in 'worthwhile' occupations.
>
> I say 'worthwhile' because I was assuming you meant people in a position to change the world in some big, wonderful way. If I mis-interpreted you, I apologize. Personally, I think most any occupation is worthwhile, in one way or another.

I think that I was ambiguous in what I wrote. The occupations of individual members of mensa are unimportant (The actor reference was just a snide comment). Of course, individuals who are members of mensa represent a wide variety of occupations, work skills, and so on, which may or may not have value in themselves. The point that I meant to make, and failed to, was that it is an open question whether mensa as an organization has any value to anyone other than its own members. I can see that it might have some indirect merit, considering that it may provide a means of improvement for its already talented individuals, and thus they are able to affect the people and world around them in more broad and significant ways.

Apart from this, however, (and I must say that I question my own suggestion of merit) does mensa do anything significant for anyone outside its own membership?
Does it matter whether it does or does not? I don't mean this to be insulting to you, but I think that the answer to the former question may be no. I do have limited knowledge of the organization, however, so I would be interested and glad to be proven wrong.

As an aside, I heard an interesting "fact" about the origin of I.Q. tests. If what I heard was true, when they were originally designed, women had higher I.Q. scores, on average, than men. The tests were reorganized and redesigned to "level the playing field", so to speak (or write). I wonder what that means if it is true. Does it mean that women really are, in general, more intelligent than men in the areas originally tested for? Are I.Q. tests completely worthless? Should mensa have a largely female membership? How many questions can this moron post in a row?

Frum