4 ms·

The US Army requires a minimum AFQT percentile of 31 for enlistment which, based on standard IQ norms (mean = 100, SD = 15), maps to roughly an IQ of 85 (one st

The US Army requires a minimum AFQT percentile of 31 for enlistment which, based on standard IQ norms (mean = 100, SD = 15), maps to roughly an IQ of 85 (one standard deviation below mean). I.e. if you have an IQ below 85 you can't even sweep up the floor for the army

nostrebored 1y ago
And it’s because they found that using people below that threshold for _any purpose, including canon fodder_ has disastrously bad outcomes.
- bofadeez 1y ago
  Around 50 million Americans fall below this threshold and are positively counterproductive for ANY military purpose, no matter how menial, no matter the shortage of recruits.
  - cutemonster 1y ago
    > counterproductive for ANY military purpose Putin uses such people as cannon fodder, meat wave attacks
- Avshalom 1y ago
  I mean, a quick look at the flynn effect would indicate that's complete fucking nonsense. we won ww2 with an army a solid SD below today's 100.
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    We won it against a regime led by a certifiable nutcase who forced many of his smartest citizens to flee the country. Many of them ended up here.
  - bofadeez 1y ago
    Are you Russian?
    - Avshalom 1y ago
      Well the flynn effect is global so either the russians won ww2 with people an SD below today's mean IQ or the US military thinks that the russian army (that won ww2) circa '40 wasn't even fit for cannon fodder.
      - bofadeez 1y ago
        So you're arguing it ws low IQ vs low IQ? Okay... Do you have a point? I understand that you're upset for some reasno. Do you have a counter-point? You think the army is stupid and you know better? What is your point? Would you prefer your child have an IQ of 120 or 80? If you have a preference, then you're morally inconsistent and don't even realize it? That must be a frustrating condition to go through life with? At least try to have a nice day in spite of your limitations. It's not your fault, we're all equal in God's eyes.
        Avshalom 1y ago
        Good job being incapable of synthesizing both of your perversions into a single post. I am "arguing" (not arguing, simply stating basic facts) that neither Russia nor the USA were giving "IQ tests" to soldiers. Also neither Russia nor the USA are currently giving "IQ tests" to soldiers. To Wit: I do not think the Army not accepting people who score too low on their entrance exam has anything to do with "IQ". Also neither I nor my hypothetical child will be taking an "IQ test" (again not actually a defined thing) so having a preference is not a sensible idea.
        bofadeez 1y ago
        If you had to pick 120 or 80, what would it be? You have no preference whether they can read or write? Notice you're cornered logically? Wouldn't you prefer to have a strong opinion based in reason?

nostrebored 1y ago

And it’s because they found that using people below that threshold for _any purpose, including canon fodder_ has disastrously bad outcomes.

bofadeez 1y ago
Around 50 million Americans fall below this threshold and are positively counterproductive for ANY military purpose, no matter how menial, no matter the shortage of recruits.
- cutemonster 1y ago
  > counterproductive for ANY military purpose Putin uses such people as cannon fodder, meat wave attacks
Avshalom 1y ago
I mean, a quick look at the flynn effect would indicate that's complete fucking nonsense. we won ww2 with an army a solid SD below today's 100.
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  We won it against a regime led by a certifiable nutcase who forced many of his smartest citizens to flee the country. Many of them ended up here.
- bofadeez 1y ago
  Are you Russian?
  - Avshalom 1y ago
    Well the flynn effect is global so either the russians won ww2 with people an SD below today's mean IQ or the US military thinks that the russian army (that won ww2) circa '40 wasn't even fit for cannon fodder.
    - bofadeez 1y ago
      So you're arguing it ws low IQ vs low IQ? Okay... Do you have a point? I understand that you're upset for some reasno. Do you have a counter-point? You think the army is stupid and you know better? What is your point? Would you prefer your child have an IQ of 120 or 80? If you have a preference, then you're morally inconsistent and don't even realize it? That must be a frustrating condition to go through life with? At least try to have a nice day in spite of your limitations. It's not your fault, we're all equal in God's eyes.
      - Avshalom 1y ago
        Good job being incapable of synthesizing both of your perversions into a single post. I am "arguing" (not arguing, simply stating basic facts) that neither Russia nor the USA were giving "IQ tests" to soldiers. Also neither Russia nor the USA are currently giving "IQ tests" to soldiers. To Wit: I do not think the Army not accepting people who score too low on their entrance exam has anything to do with "IQ". Also neither I nor my hypothetical child will be taking an "IQ test" (again not actually a defined thing) so having a preference is not a sensible idea.
        bofadeez 1y ago
        If you had to pick 120 or 80, what would it be? You have no preference whether they can read or write? Notice you're cornered logically? Wouldn't you prefer to have a strong opinion based in reason?