Talk:Mensa International

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. [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)

Mensa can say what it pleases, but when I joined in 1998, the top 1% story was still official, but so was the part of the Constitution which detailed Mensa's existence as primarily to help those with extreme intelligence find ways to deal with social problems associated with hyperintelligence, and a dedication to use human intelligence to help humanity. Within a year, Yuppies had invaded, forced lower entry standards and repurposed Mensa into an exclusive Yuppie scum club. Now they'd let a donkey in as long as it knew the right people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.60.200 (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

^ Good Lord, you are an ass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.155.209 (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

its a club, people who like to get some identity out of club membership, whether thats collecting model trains or scoring well on puzzles, it doesn't make a difference, most 99'ers aren't members, its quite boring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noserider (talk • contribs) 08:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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 is/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)

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

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

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)

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)

Guess this can be counted as "criticism" -- there is an anectode regarding Karl Popper, who when invited to join Mensa (or at least doing the test) supposedly said something like "whatever his intelligence was, it wasn't so low as to make him want to sit around with people whose only attribute was they the did well on IQ tests". Does anyone have a source for this? (I've asked the same question on the Wikiquote discossion page.) Hexmaster (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That so-called quote can't possibly be a quote from Popper or anyone else. People do not say of *themselves*: "whatever his intelligence was, it wasn't so low as to make him..." D'you see that? 31.52.253.211 (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

One person borne with a higher Intelligence Quotient may be assumed to better understand those same "smarts" that a bumbling wild man know and, for the example, live by. Jack London's "dandy" was only unprivileged with regard to the outer world. 157.252.146.251 (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean? 2601:282:847F:1F0:7D28:AD14:7EFA:9BA9 (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

If I may try to give a (very late) reply to Tom Cod's question: The test that American Mensa itself administers measures intelligence, not knowledge. Things are complicated a little by the fact that American Mensa also accepts defined scores gained on a range of other tests (such as the SAT) for admission, and in some of these other tests having a broad knowledge helps greatly (e.g. the SAT reading questions). Even those tests, however, are not quizzes in the sense that factual knowledge is tested. Intelligence is a concept very different from knowledge. SchnitteUK (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

When I was a member of Mensa in the early 1990's the monthly journal had an article about how people became Mensans. It said half the people had taken a non Mensan test, the other half took the Mensa test.

OF THE PEOPLE WHO TOOK THE MENSA TEST HALF WERE IN THE 98TH PERCENTILE.

Now it may be theoretically possible for people to be so self selecting that only the very brightest take the test, but I really doubt that.

Mensa has a conflict, on the one hand they want to be exclusive, on the other hand the national Mensa wants as many dues paying members as possible. My opinion is that they have compromised their integrity in pursuit of money. 67.150.142.183 (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)jimmyreno

I realize that this comment is nearly a year old, but to anybody reading it now: All of this constitutes original research on the part of the poster, and is not relevent to the article in any way. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion. Rapier (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you implying Mensa doesn't collect fees from its members or prospects? 71.212.213.238 (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It astonishes me that folks don't seem to catch on about this sort of scam. Mensa belongs in the same box with Who's Who and the Emmy Awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a great and edgy opinion to have, but I've sat numerous valid IQ tests and my score on the test Mensa used was completely ballpark with respect to my other results e.g. on WAIS-IV. In addition, my academic performance has been largely commensurate with what my IQ percentile suggests. In general, you can take a look on places like Reddit where people increasingly discuss the correlation between their results on various IQ tests including Mensa's - I'm yet to come across someone who never scored higher than, say, the 95th percentile on practice tests but still made it on the Mensa exam. Almost everyone I've seen discuss their Mensa results on the internet had some prior indication, often in the form of results from previously-sat IQ tests, that they stood a good chance of getting in. Of course this is only anecdotal but on the other hand you've provided no evidence for your point of view. It'd be a big scandal, one that would be easy to test and therefore easy to reveal, if Mensa were misrepresenting the intelligence percentile of tested applicants. I doubt anyone would ever investigate this unless there were some good reason to (all respect to your unsubstantiated opinion), but if they did I highly doubt anything would come of it. sabine antelope 02:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 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: (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)

Elise Tan Roberts from Britain aged two years and four months. See BBC News --Kiwipat (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is relevant news that should be in the article. 98.113.199.242 (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as we're talking about this section, rather than saying "Mensa's youngest member is X years old", I suggest changing to "Mensa's youngest member joined at X years of age" - by the time Elise is, say, 5, there may be a 3 year old joining. The 3 year old would be the youngest (current) member, but they are not younger than Elise's record of two years of age. --Canuckguy (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done   Changed "... are age two" to "... joined at the age of two" — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The premise of a high-IQ society must have been criticized more than once before. I came to this page, just now, looking (to satisfy my own curiosity) for arguments against and for MENSA's premise. I didn't notice any. Shouldn't they be mentioned? --MQDuck (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Happy Editing! — 71.166.147.78 (talk · contribs) _{01:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)}

Perhaps the criticisms say more about the critics than this organisation, and should be in articles about them. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What a garbage comment, then surely no page should have critical section since criticism is about the critics not the matter which is critiqued. Utter moronic garbage, and typical expurgation of a page as per wiki standards 79.130.120.155 (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There are obviously some flaws with IQ testing, not the least of which is the inherent skewing of results that is produced by questions that import the bias of culture and language and the like. However, such criticism is better suited to Wikipaedia's Intelligence Quotient article, (which, incidentally, includes quite an extensive critique of IQ testing). Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 10:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If you come across a wp:reliable source with criticism for or against Mensa then of course that would probably be quite reasonable as a source for the article. Just sticking in one's own comments is totally wrong. Dmcq (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the text here only seems to apply to American Mensa. For example, British Mensa allows an applicant to re-take a Mensa test after 12 months if they were unsuccessful the first time. 86.132.67.233 (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done   Added the qualifier, "In some national groups," … Happy Editing! — 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs) _{17:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)}

Thanks! But the stuff about "alternate battery of culture-fair, non-language tests" also seems to be specific to American Mensa. There is no mention of such alternatives on the British Mensa web pages. 86.144.9.251 (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done I fixed it myself :-) 86.144.9.251 (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The British Mensa also does supervised IQ tests whereas the article just says about a test which says you get in or not. Is there a separate yes/no test. Dmcq (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok we have a couple of Mensa member's stickers with the logos.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DeusImperator (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 May 2011

FYI, there is already {{User Mensa Life Member}} and several others that do not use the Mensa logo, which is copyrighted and cannot be used in userboxes here … see also this earlier thread. Happy Editing! — 70.21.17.51 (talk · contribs) _{16:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)}

"Mensans come from many different backgrounds, vary in job and profession, and are represented among all age groups." Seriously? That's all there is to be said about the demographics of Mensa? 24.23.244.44 (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the 2% of the available population is relatively random, though there are some skews in those that actually get tested and then join. Mark Hurd (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you actually expect the article to wade into racial demographics? You know that's verboten for such a subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Stuff has been stuck in about mensa not only meaning a table but being a wordplay on mens. I think we'd need to have a source showing that such a wordplay was though of when making up the name. Dmcq (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This harkens back to the meaning in different languages … see Talk:Mensa International/Archive 3#Meanings in various languages. Happy Editing! — 71.166.140.155 (talk · contribs) _{13:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)}

My personal criticism of Mensa is the high fees they (and perhaps others as well) charge for intelligence tests. The current German fee for such a test is around 50 euros. This is a lot of money for a poor person - and thus effectively shutting out all highly intelligent but poor people from these tests. Which imho results in a social "filtering". I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turned out that the amount of Mensa and other organizations members from lower social classes were rather low. Because lower social classes need to spend their money for rather life-sustaining elements, like renting fees for their flats, gas, food, clothing etc. . They wouldn't be able to spend a large sum of money for just a test. And, by the way, a similar way of shutting out lower social classes is effectively done by high prices for scientific books. Which sometimes even public libraries cannot afford (an interpretation would be that the prices were set consciously so high that public libraries *should not* be able to afford them). But that would be a different topic. Alrik Fassbauer (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder that - as per the notice at the top of the page - the talk page is not a forum for airing opinions on Mensa. If you think we need to add something to the article, please say so. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I quote, "According to American Mensa website, 38 percent of its members are baby boomers between the ages of 51 and 68, 31 percent are Gen-Xers between the ages of 27 and 48, and more than 2,600 members are under the age of 18. There are more than 1,800 families in the United States with two or more Mensa members.[24]".

It is ridiculous to claim percentages for the age brackets, and provide a raw figure for the members under the age of 18. I don't see a reference to total number of mensa members. What use is this metric?

192.5.215.254 (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree. Say, 38 percent of baby boomers is a lot, or very little? That is, how does it compare to baby boomer percentage overall? As is the figure is useless. And even in context it would not be that much relevant. Except maybe to demonstrate diversity, or non-discrimination, but is there a need to? Or... something else? - Nabla (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Twice recently someone has changed the male/female proportion on the grounds that 66%+33% does not equal 100%. Both times I've reverted, on the grounds that the cited reference says 66%, 33%, not 66.5% etc or two-thirds. Possibly 1% are "not specified".

I've now changed it to a direct quote from the reference. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional point;

This point

> The aggregate of local and national leadership is distributed equally between the sexes.

is verified with this source

> https://www.us.mensa.org/learn/about/demographics/

which makes no mention whatsoever of this claim. Not sure how to proceed, do I delete the point entirely or just add 'citation needed'?

DamienHanrahan (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC) DamienHanrahan 24 Jan 17

The right address on the Wikipedia map is" 55 avenue Marceau - 75116 PARIS" 83.155.165.247 (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

What does Mensa actually do, exactly? They don't seem to accomplish anything practical or meaningful. They don't seem to contribute any great ideas to society, they don't seem to foster education of any kind. You'd think a community of geniuses would be able to contribute more to the world. Perhaps there are better uses for a gifted mind than joining Mensa. 23.233.58.250 (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe they advise in the area of education for gifted children, and related things. Either way, no social organization has to contribute anything to society so I don't see why you are criticizing them. If people are happy being a member, clearly the organization serves a worthwhile purpose. You use the word 'seem' a lot, which suggests that you don't really have an idea whether your criticism is even valid. Lastly, a gifted person is under no obligation to 'use' their capabilities in any way. Gap9551 (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Australian Mensa provides support for gifted children (of members and non-members), and grants for gifted children and research. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I find no reason why we need to discuss the what purpose Mensa here, as it is not going to result in any changes of the page at all. As far as NGOs in general goes, their main purpose is to fill the needs of their members, either as channel for the members' common wish for some specific external action or accomplishment, or any specific internal purpose the members find meaningful, even if non-members do not. As far as I gather, Mensa does a little bit of the first and quite a lot of the lather of those two. —Mortenoslash (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Please remember that talk pages are for discussing improving the Mensa article, not discussing Mensa in general. Thanks! AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The article swims a lot between these both entities. Shouldn't we have different articles for each of the Mensa groups? --سلوك Saluk 11:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Talking just about the article itself, the glaring omission to me is that it tells you nothing about what Mensa is actually like. When I go to a Wikipedia article, I want to know what it is, what it does and how it works; most of all, I want to know why, in case I can use it. This article has a lot to say about the box it comes in, but nothing about Mensa itself. There was one reference, which I swear was on the Talk Page, but which now seems to have disappeared, which mentioned that one of Mensa’s roles was to meet the needs of those of high intelligence who had great social difficulty with it. I noticed this, because that is how I came to join. Mensa was recommended to me by a therapist, and it was excellent advice. The first thing I learned was that I was not alone; my unease in normal social circles was transformed by a place in which I did not have to repeat myself all the time, in which no topic was taboo and, for those of you who have done improv work, was a “yes and” environment. Conversations were always collaborative, rather than competitive, and the atmosphere was generally jolly. At the same time, the members were diverse, to use the current term, and there were no agenda, I suspect because most of us were united only by our difficulty in other situations, whence the oddball reputation Mensans sometimes have. I have no idea if this is true of all those who qualify to join, but in my experience, it was true of those who showed up to the meetings. My intelligence is not just a high-speed version of average intelligence; it is different in kind and function. Even its grist, my knowledge, is differently processed and stored, and that was true of all of us. If one of us were to find themselves on the page as it stands, there would be nothing there for them. Unfortunately, it’s been many years since I last went to a meeting, but I’m sure that is still the case. Mensa International will have plenty on the current membership, and a lot more valuable research rather than my individual experience. They’ll fill in the blanks, I’m sure. OsmNacht (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a problem that Mensans try very hard not to talk about so that nobody claims responsibility of how to fix it. Wikipedia can be anonymous, so there won't be reprisals, and this problem has spread throughout so much of the American, British, and Australian orgs in such a short time (I'm not aware of other nations, but it's likely a problem everywhere).

The alt-right/neo-Nazis are the fastest-growing community in Mensa. In fact, if you see a white man in his 20s or 30s applying, there's a good chance he's a Nazi proving to the others that he's 'smart' enough to join in with their conversations and plans.

I really feel like this is something that needs to be added, especially since this whole page reads very positive and doesn't include the usual basic criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E5B9:5800:1D8C:514B:EC59:3578 (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Any source(s)? Alexbrn (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

That has to be one of the densest things I have ever read, and actually pretty offensive. I agree with Alexbrn - any sources? 2600:8802:5500:E900:856:2438:B19C:EFF8 (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@2001:8003:E5B9:5800:1D8C:514B:EC59:3578 [citation needed] 2A02:3032:414:9934:A1E8:FDCD:94F9:C7B6 (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I propose a merge from Densa to Mensa International. Densa on its own is not notable and doesn't have any significant coverage that warrants a separate page, however, it seems to be a commonly used pun with coverage of its history, so it would make sense to mention it in the Mensa article. 🍅 fx (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I disagree; I don't think mentioning an obscure parody is relevant enough for the Mensa International article. Its article contains no recent sources (all sources given are over 20 years old) and none from outside North America. (Fwiw, I'm German and have never heard of "Densa" at all.)

So if it's not notable on its own, the Densa article should be deleted, not merged. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I just did the merge right before you made your comment, sorry. I thought about doing an AfD first, but it seemed like the term is somewhat widely used. I think there could be an In popular culture section, then the Densa part could be potentially shortened and moved into there. 🍅 fx (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

find my IQ@ ~2026-16315-56 (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, this page is for discussing the Wikipedia page Mensa International, it is not a way to contact Mensa. 🍅 fx (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)