Older Mensans Ought to Be Smarter than to Pick On A Millennial With Tats!

"Michelle" - posing for the cover of Mensa Bulletin in Dec. 2004. Older fuddy-duddie Ms piled on in the wake.

I joined Mensa 20 years ago in order to try to find a forum and venue predicated on greater open-mindedness, and with people prepared to discuss issues based on evidence as opposed to emotion.  What I often found, in the course of sundry debates-exchanges, were people often no more informed than the "normals" or  the "98 percent".  Sure, they had the higher IQs (you only qualify if you place in the upper 2% of the population) but that alone doesn't ensure being able to use logic, or refraining from attacks on a fellow member's appearance.

One of the most bludgeoning wake up calls transpired after a Millennial, "Michelle", appeared on the cover of issue No. 480 back in 2004. Michelle (see image) evinced the non-conformist Millennial who is attractive but also opts for body piercings and tats.  The photo was intended to focus on Generations in Mensa, and how well they got along with each other. Well, not so much based on the flack that followed in droves of hateful, stupid and spiteful letters to the Bulletin. Many of these were published in the subsequent issue under the header 'About That Cover Photo'.  The lead in paragraph to the letters observed:

"Although the volume of letters complaining about the cover and our model, Michelle, still runs a distant second to those incensed over a small child kissing a puppy (February, 2004), what we lacked in quantity this time we made up for in vehemence and vitriol."

 Some examples:

"I suppose your cover girl picture of Michelle shocked many of us when we pulled out the Nov-Dec Mensa Bulletin from our mailboxes. But isn't that what you intended? Hey! For the first time in 25 years of membership I simply tore off and trashed the cover.....

It is sad when an otherwise pretty woman should have to mutilate herself in order to draw attention. 'Smart' or not it shows a self-demeaning personality who desperately needs psychiatric help.

Also, there are no 'generational differences! Past generations simply visited these people in freak shows!"  - C.B.Huesing  Ft. Wayne, IN


"What could have possibly gone through the heads of whoever put the picture of the mutilated trollop on the cover of Mensa Magazine No. 480?  Someone may think that garbage is attractive - but those rings are for controlling pigs, which she certainly is. And her other piercings may be cute to bikers and drug abusers as well as the completely ugly tattoos which will keep her out of the workplace.

It is incredible that Mensa would think this is acceptable in any way. It is barbaric and not conducive to recruiting people like my daughter who is 16 and trying to decide between Harvard, Davidson and Williams ...She would be repulsed if I showed her this magazine, so I will trash it immediately."

-T.R. Cook III, D.M.D., M.D.  (No location given)


"This is the ugliest cover I have ever seen on a Mensa Bulletin. Does this individual actually represent Mensa youth? Certainly, she and the cover are proof that there is no positive correlation between intelligence and judgment."  S.D. Higgins - Albuquerque, NM


"I am appalled by your cover selection for the Nov.-Dec Mensa Bulletin. By placing the photo of a misguided woman who has deliberately disfigured herself her face and body and having called it 'Generations in Mensa', you have invited disgust on my part. The ultimate offense was in your reference to this as 'body art'.

If you persist in this manner of publishing I will feel compelled to request that my membership in Mensa be severed." - 'Butch' Bialke, Park Rapids, MN


"The Mensa Bulletin has reached new levels of propriety and journalism. First, it was the article several issues ago about the slut Asia Carrera. She may be Mensan but a slut nonetheless.  Now, the current issue features a freak on the cover.

Who will be next? Osama bin Laden? At this rate you'll be up for a Pulitzer Prize for sure!"

- J.P. Robinson (No location given)


"With reference to the Mensa Bulletin of Nov-Dec, 2004, when did Mensa get taken over by Satan?

With reference to the cover, please refer to Leviticus 19:28 and to Revelation 21:8 and the term 'abominable' which tells us what is to become of those who do such things. There are the words of Jesus Christ as God who made everything and established all the commandments, statutes and judgments stated in the Bible (John 1:1-4 and Hebrews, 1)"  - Harold J. Farrell, Hastings, Neb.


"How sad that a beautiful, intelligent  young woman feels it necessary to disfigure herself with those really bad illustrations on her skin. Even more sad is the appearance of her image on the cover of issue No. 480, the magazine for the members of American Mensa."- Trudy Loper


---
Well, after reading through all this flapdoodle, I was reminded of the old saying: "better to remain quiet and be suspected of being a fool, than to open one's mouth and confirm it".  Especially the character who claims to be an M.D. and calls Michelle a 'mutilated trollop' and the other nominal Mensan who cites an ancient book once used to stone women and homosexuals to death.

But Michelle got her say in the January issue (No. 481):

"I have to admit I was a bit surprised (perhaps naïve) and dismayed to hear that my appearance on the cover of the November/December issue of the Bulletin caused such an uproar. I was a bit puzzle by this reaction, particularly from a group that, by definition, is unusual. Mensans all at least two standard deviations above the mean, making us all patently unusual.

Human nature dictates that people form themselves into groups consisting of "us" and "them".  This division can be made along a multitude of lines: geography, religion, race, gender. I suspect many people are chafing inside at the self-imposed, yet uncomfortable, social prison that necessitates the denial of their true selves. It bothers me that intelligent people so easily fall into the grips of such an automatic, yet unfortunately common, social phenomenon.

TO those who object to my appearance: the only really important difference between us is that I got tired of pretending to be 'normal'. Now I simply wear my weirdness on the outside, and it has been quite liberating. It has also added the advantage of separating the 'cream of the crop' when dealing with people, or the less common but truly worthwhile effect of opening one's mind.

If my mere image can challenge assumptions and group boundaries, and just one person resists the temptation to fall into the grips of the human brain's unfortunate categorization process, then I have dropped my pebble in the pond. When one boundary becomes fuzzy, perhaps others will as well- such as those relating to gender, sexual orientation, culture or any other arbitrary human division that exists.

Those who reacted negatively- I implore you to take a moment to look inside yourself and ask why my image causes you such distress. Is it because your perception has been challenged? Is it because you can't reconcile the dichotomy of an intelligent person who is also different? This is not a criticism, it is in fact, a gift.  If you confront these feelings it may allow you to grow. I am a picture on a piece of paper to you, yet be assured that somewhere out here, that image correlates with a living, breathing human being.

If you took the time to know me, it might actually threaten your world view...yes- but what is life without challenge? Growth rarely occurs in the absence of conflict. I can't claim much importance, I am just one person in a sea of many. But what I represent - change- should give you a cause to look inward and determine why a mere image can fill you with such venom.

We are all different. Many of us have felt alienated and as if we don't quite belong anywhere. I have been blessed with the wonderful yet sometimes difficult inability to pretend to be anything aside from what I really am. Please respect that."

-----

Quite a well written response. In regard to why such venom was displayed in reaction to Michelle's image, I am reminded of an experiment described by Dacher Keltner in his book, 'Born to Be Good'.    He was interested in exploring the arousal of what he called "gut morality" in an Ethics class. He surmised most people simply reacted at "gut" level before their neocortex could process actual moral transgression and distinguish it from idiosyncrasy - even foul idiosyncrasy.  To that end, he asked students to morally rate a scenario in which a man goes to purchase a chicken from the grocery each week, then has sexual relations with it.

After most of the class reacting emotionally and screaming "Pervert!" and condemning the act as most foul (not fowl), Keltner led them through the act again and more slowly, engaging their higher brain centers instead of the limbic ones.  By the end of the period they backed off, dismissed the guy's penchant for  store chickens as a foible and agreed no law or moral edict was violated so long as the practice was confined to his own domicile, preferably with the curtains drawn. Oh, ...and he should not invite any guests for chicken dinners!

I'd submit that the reaction to Michelle's tats and piercings equates to a similar gut reaction, and the assorted elder Mensans who fired back irate replies didn't let their gut -stoked neurons cool down first.  Had they waited a week or so and processed their thoughts more carefully, they'd likely have backed off ...Maybe. Who knows?


In the end, what the episode disclosed is that enormous divisions exist even inside Mensa, oh, and inside Intertel too,

Most of these we may never be able to surmount, as they relate to religious differences, political divisions, and economics ....but I hope to whatever higher order power may exist we get over the negative reaction to appearances....especially among the most intelligent citizens.

Else ...what the hell will we do when these guys below show up from Tau Ceti? If people can't handle Michellle's piercings and tats how are they going to handle communicating and interacting with ET?

"Jen Ratio" and Goodness: Maybe We Should Take Note

 Sandra Fluke Embodies a high jen person of goodness
According to Dacher Keltner, in his book, 'Born to Be Good', "Jen is a central concept in the teachings of Confucius and refers to a complex mixture of kindness, humanity and respect that transpires between people."

In later parts of his book, he even makes the case that there are biological markers that are signatures for "high jen" humans, including: vagus nerve operation (eliciting lower heartbeat and release of oxytocin inducing more compassion for fellow humans), oxytocin itself - inducing greater empathy for others, more trust, and the Duchenne smile - embodying the outward manifestation of love of humanity and a general trust.

As we can see by examination of the photo of Sandra Fluke - at the Democratic Convention- her face captures the "Duchenne smile", and hence manifests higher oxytocin levels in her physiology, as well as being a "vagal superstar" in the parlance of Prof. Keltner. These also reflect a "high jen" persona or to quote Confucius: "A person of high jen brings the good things of others to completeness." By contrast, a negative, scowling persona indicates low jen and he is more likely to bring the bad things of others to completion. Moreover he doesn't trust others unless they are part of his immediate kin.

Keltner's claim and which is expatiated upon in his book, is that the jen concept "reveals a new way to think about the evolution of human goodness." Also, why is it that those like Sandra Fluke exhibit high jen while her calumniators, say like Rush Limbaugh - exhibit very low jen? It could be on account of their upbringing. Very often, as Keltner observes, low -jen humans originate in the cradle. They are seldom held by their mothers, they are usually slapped or screamed at rather than embraced, hugged, and these actions lead to negative physiological markers - including low oxytocin levels, and overly excited vagus nerve response to most situations.

The "jen ratio" is the somewhat subjective measure that allows the quality of jen in a person to be assessed. According to Prof. Keltner, when assessing the jen ratio in another person, we place all his negative recent actions in the denominator, and all his positive actions in the numerator. For example, let's say he's a blogger who professes to be religious and aspires to carry forth "God's holy word". Then in the numerator we place all those times he has encouraged others and shown true Christian love to them, and in the denominator we place all those occasions in his blogs where he's threatened them with hell even indirectly (e.g. putting 'tick, tick tock' up ) or inserted any hellish images - say of atheists burning up. Let's say just once he's written an inspiring piece on his blog that elevates other religions, while 25 times he'd put up hell images or condemning words in the past month. Then his jen ratio is: 1/ 25 = 0.04.

Keltner also maintains one can apply the jen ratio to just about anything: one's interior life, the tenor of a family reunion, the goodwill of a neighborhood, the rhetoric of a president or the actions of a political party. From this, one would be able to say that very plausibly Obama's rhetoric is "high jen" while the GOP's  behavior, standoffs on the fiscal cliff and (coming soon) the debt ceiling is very, very low jen.

Sandra Fluke's caring for her sisters facing health problems because of their being unable to access affordable contraceptives, is very high jen. She obviously seeks to bring the good of other young women to completeness. She even put herself on the line, exposing herself to the vitriol of pigs like Limbaugh! Her speech also at the Dem convention disclosed her as a high jen, basically good person. Her Duchenne smile is the physiological marker and confirmation. It is the outward signature of an innate, humane goodness which trusts other people implicitly and seeks to bring their best potential to fruition.

Keltner also makes the case that just as people have jen ratios, so also do nations. As he observes:

"Nations whose citizens bring the good in others to completion thrive. High jen ratios are the hallmark of healthy societies."

He goes on to cite a study that showed (ibid.):

"For every 15 percent increase in the trust of a nation's citizens, their economic fortunes rise by $430."

What about the United States? Is it gaining or losing jen? According to Keltner (p. 9):

In the recent explosion of studies in social well being, signs of loss of jen in the United States are incontrovertible. The percentage of Americans who trust their fellow citizens has dropped fifteen percentage points in the past fifteen years."

He lists the symptoms of ill health/ low jen  as follows:

- increasing feelings of anomie, greater loneliness

- the trend toward less happy marriages,

- People have fewer close friends, intimates

- Young babies have "more contact with their strollers" than human hands

Keltner also attributes (p. 195)  the American low jen ratio to a "touch-deprived culture". This ends up triggering a cycle whose outcome is inevitably lower oxytocin, less national trust. The lower oxytocin resulting from lack of tactile stimulation then initiates even less trust, and lower oxytocin. He asserts that the widespread tactile deprivation in the U.S. - from the case of parents ignoring crying infants, to teachers fearful of patting students on the head for good work (on account of possible abuse charges) "owes its deep roots to the Puritans, well known for their attempts at extirpating human delights".  The 40 -year long hostile "drug war"  (especially against MJ) is also a creature originating with this dynamic, as is the widespread fear of sex, intimacy.

Interestingly, Prof. Keltner ties these trends to an "ideology" that if pursued further will lead to a national jen ratio of 0. He refers to the main culprit as "rational choice theory"  and the "strongest proponents are in the halls of economic departments". The deformed creature resulting is "Homo Economicus" - a misshapen critter solely looking out for himself and his financial advancement, and a believer in the Neoliberal idiom that each person must disdain governmental supports or assistance in favor of "personal initiative". This also feeds into the nation's overt hyper-consumption, since each individual as a worker is then expected to consume, consume and consume using his wages....so remain on the work-spend treadmill til he croaks.

A high jen society with a view to correcting the unemployment problem, for example,  would instead leave out rational choice theory and de-prioritize consumption. It would see the problem as too many work hours by a relative small proportion, so would seek to partition those work hours so they are more equitably allotted to all who need work. Thus, instead of current 50-60 hour weeks (imperiling family health and personal time), we'd go down to the more reasonable 30-35 hours a week. This would enable more people to be hired, albeit at the shorter hours. They'd initially earn less income, for sure, but they'd also have less for infantile consumption. As the new wage -work tableaux then settled in, a new wage-price structure would be the outcome ...so prices would be held in concordance with the new wage structures. But by then, a firm saving ethic would already be established, having been reinforced by earlier lower income.

The problem is that the rational choice theorist doesn't trust for this to happen, or be beneficial to society. It more suits his Neoliberal fancy to have definite income winners and losers as opposed to spreading the wealth (income, resources) so more of the society benefits. It also suits his fancy,say if a shareholder of some company like Mattel, to have more 'Barbie' buyers not fewer. Naturally, this person is severely low jen!

The general outcome of this inverse jen thinking abounds: "economic losses loom larger than equivalent gains, losing twenty dollars stings more than finding a twenty pleases, " and thus the affected person is further induced to pursue rigorous self-interest.

Interestingly, this same exact dynamic is what Benjamin Barber has defined as in accord with the "infantile consumer ethos" in his book, CONSUMED.  Thus, we see that the Neoliberal, self-interested pursuit of economic gains is tied to a naturally infantile, low jen persona.

Is there more to it? I believe there is. I, for one, hypothesize it's not merely a matter of rational choice theory taking hold but rather excess militarism too. Militarism extolled as a national virtue debases a country, and causes it to pursue decidedly low jen goals such as less international cooperation, perpetual war (to keep the military industrial complex fed), building of empire - with military bases scattered by the thousands across the globe, and a military culture which praises all soldiers who've "served" as some kind of super-citizens, but disparages other citizens, say like Peace Corps workers, or even the medical volunteers for 'Doctors without Borders'. The sure sign of a sick, low -jen society is none other than one for which the glorification of the military is paramount. And the more money we cast into its maw the worse it will get, including manifesting in outbreaks of irrational gun violence.

Keltner is basically correct, but he needed to extend his net of low jen culprits a bit wider!