I have seen members opine that anybody who is a nonconformist and bucks the
"groupthink" on the AMC gets frustrated and ends up quitting or refusing to run in the first place.
Gosh, that sounds really bad. So I got to pondering....
What is the difference between a "nonconformist" and a "holder of a minority viewpoint" in a democratic society? Isn't the whole point of voting to make the resulting decision one that most members agree on.?
Should nonconformists roll over and give up since they'll never win a vote, or should they stay on in order to ensure that all views, even minority ones, are aired? Perhaps Mensa would be better served if they work cooperatively and respectfully within the larger group towards compromises that might please even more members.
"My way or the highway" approaches to making Board decisions usually result in... worn out shoe leather.
1 comment:
Another zero comment. I presume that Charlie Bruce is one of those. Most people, by my observation, go to gatherings to play games at least some of the time. What Charlie wanted to talk about was games, mostly card games, which is serving the user groups. Nobody else on the AMC had a similar view, and he quit.
Post a Comment