Intelligent soldiers most likely to die in battle

[alfredo]

Another reason war is wrong.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16297-intelligent-soldiers-most-likely-to-die-in-battle.html

Intelligent soldiers most likely to die in battle

11:57 19 December 2008 by Ewen Callaway

Being dumb has its benefits. Scottish soldiers who survived the second world war were less intelligent than men who gave their lives defeating the Third Reich, a new study of British government records concludes.

The 491 Scots who died and had taken IQ tests at age 11 achieved an average IQ score of 100.8. Several thousand survivors who had taken the same test - which was administered to all Scottish children born in 1921 – averaged 97.4.

The unprecedented demands of the second world war – fought more with brains than with brawn compared with previous wars - might account for the skew, says Ian Deary, a psychologist at the University of Edinburgh, who led the study. Dozens of other studies have shown that smart people normally live longer than their less intelligent peers.

"We wonder whether more skilled men were required at the front line, as warfare became more technical," Dear says.

[Deja Q]

1. That's very stupid of them to do.

The smart ones would find ways to kill the stupid ones off, right?

On the other hand, "Survival of the fittest", no wonder the smart ones get killed more quickly. With "It's not what you know but who you know" combined with mass media combined with smart people being ostracized or shunned often enough, our society is pretty much dumbed down. Which means America will be around for centuries to come.

[alfredo]

8. If I was a commander, and needed someone to do a needed and

dangerous task. I would select someone smart enough to follow orders and do a good job.

[Buzz Clik]

2. I'm not particularly impressed by a difference of 3 IQ points.

Neither average is spectacular -- 100.7 isn't exactly genius level, and 97 is not exactly mentally challenged.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. This is the sort of result you'd expect if the effect is relatively weak

but statistically significant. The fact is, many things besides IQ are associated with survival in combat, such as just being in the wrong place when an artillery shell lands.

[Orsino]

3. There are all different sorts of intelligence.

And no one has ever been able to demonstrate clearly just what IQ means.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. The particular type of intelligence in question is that measured by

the IQ tests given Scottish school children in the '30's. I would assume it was some sort of mass-administered variant on the Binet scales. They would be able to extract information on whether verbal, spatial, or mathematical skills were the best predictors of survival, but this was not apparently done. As for "all different sorts of intelligence," factor analyses of IQ test items show a general factor underlying most of the components of the test (rote memory, as in digit span, being an exception).

[Orsino]

7. Right. An IQ test, especially one given so long ago, can't really map...

...all the things that can be called "intelligence."

[fla nocount]

11. Someone who gets it.

IQ tests attempt to measure adaptive behavior and linear cognitive processes. If you're well versed in the idioms and habits of the milieu that designed and scores the test you'll probably do well.

IQ tests label and restrict individuals based on an unscientific aberration of social/cultural/cognitive expectations laced with statistics.

Total bull-shit. I've taken these tests and administered them as proctor. I'm somewhere between 122 and 164, it depends on mindset and a knowledge of what is being measured.

An early study in ebonics asked kids, "What's a deuce and a quarter"...all inner-city kids knew that it was Buick, a big plush one and wished that they had one.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. There is no evidence to show that this effect was different in earlier wars.

It's probably attributable to the fact that officers, who have higher IQ's on average, also have higher fatality rates in war.

[alfredo]

10. In earlier wars the officers were part of the ruling class. They got the

commission because of class, not merit.

[fla nocount]

12. That sounds like politics in America. n/t

[alfredo]

13. Yeah, dynasties. They aren't always bad. Some serve, some loot.

[fla nocount]

16. The Kennedy's vis a vis the Bushes? I catch the difference. n/t

[alfredo]

19. Two different styles of dealing with wealth and privilege.

[Javaman]

9. Fine, then draft all the republicans!

:rofl:

[Bucky]

14. Bah, that's just statistical clustering

If you want better data, we need to get Scotland in a war with some serious fatality rates.

[alfredo]

15. Wait for them to play football against England. You should get good data.

[varkam]

26. delete - dupe

[haele]

17. This seems more like correlation rather than causation -

Having been in the military, trained for being under fire, and having listened to those who have been under fire, my observation would be that there are two factors that should also be looked at as well as IQ -

1) How many of the "more intelligent" casualties were on scouting, independent, or forward missions, where one would prefer to send quicker, smarter, more independent thinkers. These missions also tended to be more dangerous, compared to someone who was only capable of doing skivvy duty or follow a tank.

2) There is also a risk of "overthinking" causing hesitation during stress, especially when faced with several choices under fire. Someone acting "on rote" just following orders may react more quickly than someone trying to make sense of a situation. Intense, live fire simulation training will significantly reduce this - and I imagine that many of these Scots probably did not get that sort of training before they were shipped out, especially after Blitzkrieg began, so initially, one could expect more of the overthinking to cause casualties amongst their soldiers.

I know I've been guilty of the latter on occasion, luckily not while under actual fire.

Haele

[JackRiddler]

23. I think you've got it.

#1, that is.

I doubt #2 would last as a cause for more than 34 seconds worth of actual battle.

[Fumesucker]

28. I see your #1 as causation..

Since you more or less directly state that more intelligent soldiers are likely to get more dangerous missions.

#2 might have some effect or might not, you are also likely to hesitate if you are so stupid you don't understand the order or aren't paying attention.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. First Of All, An IQ Of 100 Is Not Intelligent. Second Of All, The Difference Between 97 And 100 Is

absolutely meaningless as it relates to any real recognizable level of intelligence margin.

[fla nocount]

20. The tone of discussion has been rather serious and well thought out tonight

You're likely to go lonely on this.

[Ex Lurker]

21. simple explanation. More intelligent soldeirs tend to be selected to be officers and NCO's....

Officers and NCO's are prime targets on the battlefield.

[Cid_B]

22. Oh Noes!!11!

With this gigantic brain I shall carry with me to the Middle East I am doomed!

[alfredo]

24. Wrap it in bubble wrap and it should do just fine.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

25. You're going to Iraq? Or Afghanistan?

[varkam]

27. Some problems I see...

first, it seems that you've got many more folks in one group than in the other - which could hurt the validity of the study. Secondly, it is difficult for me to fathom how an approximately 3 point difference is statistically significant, esp. given the between-group disparity.

Just my .02.