4 ms·

If the numbers from other countries also come from the military then the point is still valid. I got tested for conscription in the Netherlands in the 90s and a

If the numbers from other countries also come from the military then the point is still valid. I got tested for conscription in the Netherlands in the 90s and a lot of people were wondering if there was any point to it (conscription was abolished soon after). So I can see an earlier generation of conscripts being much more motivated to do well.

oriolid 4y ago
For military test it works the other way too: If you score high you're more likely to end up in officer training or some specialist troops so you have to serve longer. Shorter service is a strong incentive to get a lower score on purpose. (source: I live in Finland and have done the military service)
- trompetenaccoun 4y ago
  Someone I know pretended to be a drug addicted idiot to get out of the mandatory service. It worked, he was classified not fit for service. I've heard of another case where they pretended to be gay, back in the day when they wouldn't draft gay people. It's absolutely plausible and highly likely if you ask me that people would purposefully perform badly given the right incentives.
  - 6510 4y ago
    Right, when they asked me if I used drugs I replied: Are you asking this because of the urine test?
  - oriolid 4y ago
    I've understood that the army gives the not fit for service grade quite easily, because the people who are willing to go that far to avoid service could be serious trouble if they'd be forced to serve anyway. Back in the day many employers considered missing military service suspicious so serving and doing the bare minimum would be better than trying to avoid it completely.
isitmadeofglass 4y ago
This is just silly speculation. Your not just arguing that people over time cheat themselves dumb more. Your arguing that they are doing so in an extremely marginal fashion, consistent with the tests, and coordinated across generations and families in such a way that the data comes out looking exactly like there is a small but certain correlation. The hypothesis that people just don’t care and are therefore cheat themselves dumb would have data looking completely different. And unless your also arguing that this applies to absolutely everyone you would be seeing a bimodal distribution as a clear sign of this effect on the population intentionally scoring worse.
- speleding 4y ago
  I'm not arguing that people were passing themselves off as dumb, I'm saying that when there is little relevance to the outcome of the test it could have a significant impact. (There is about 5 years between being tested and getting called up so many people were aware there was a high chance of never having to enlist when they were testing). I know that I would probably try a lot harder to do well if I knew it would be the difference between an officer level function or washing jeeps.

oriolid 4y ago

For military test it works the other way too: If you score high you're more likely to end up in officer training or some specialist troops so you have to serve longer. Shorter service is a strong incentive to get a lower score on purpose. (source: I live in Finland and have done the military service)

trompetenaccoun 4y ago
Someone I know pretended to be a drug addicted idiot to get out of the mandatory service. It worked, he was classified not fit for service. I've heard of another case where they pretended to be gay, back in the day when they wouldn't draft gay people. It's absolutely plausible and highly likely if you ask me that people would purposefully perform badly given the right incentives.
- 6510 4y ago
  Right, when they asked me if I used drugs I replied: Are you asking this because of the urine test?
- oriolid 4y ago
  I've understood that the army gives the not fit for service grade quite easily, because the people who are willing to go that far to avoid service could be serious trouble if they'd be forced to serve anyway. Back in the day many employers considered missing military service suspicious so serving and doing the bare minimum would be better than trying to avoid it completely.

isitmadeofglass 4y ago

This is just silly speculation. Your not just arguing that people over time cheat themselves dumb more. Your arguing that they are doing so in an extremely marginal fashion, consistent with the tests, and coordinated across generations and families in such a way that the data comes out looking exactly like there is a small but certain correlation. The hypothesis that people just don’t care and are therefore cheat themselves dumb would have data looking completely different. And unless your also arguing that this applies to absolutely everyone you would be seeing a bimodal distribution as a clear sign of this effect on the population intentionally scoring worse.

speleding 4y ago
I'm not arguing that people were passing themselves off as dumb, I'm saying that when there is little relevance to the outcome of the test it could have a significant impact. (There is about 5 years between being tested and getting called up so many people were aware there was a high chance of never having to enlist when they were testing). I know that I would probably try a lot harder to do well if I knew it would be the difference between an officer level function or washing jeeps.