BS: America's New Half-Wit Army

Subject: RE: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 03:24 PM

Copy-Paste enough stats and people won't bother to read or query them. In the initial post it was stated:
The same study of signal battalions took soldiers who had just taken advanced individual training courses and asked them to troubleshoot a faulty piece of communications gear. They passed if they were able to identify at least two technical problems. Smarts trumped training. Among those who had scored Category I on the aptitude test (in the 93-99 percentile), 97 percent passed. Among those who'd scored Category II (in the 65-92 percentile), 78 percent passed. Category IIIA: 60 percent passed. Category IIIB: 43 percent passed. Category IV: a mere 25 percent passed.

This means that in relation to fault-finding on comms gear 25% of the category IV were capable of out-performing 3% of the Category I, and out-perform even higher percentages of other groups. This seems to make a mockery of the initial categorisations!

CHEERS
Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army
From: MMario
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 03:07 PM

it doesn't surprise me that tests given in the milatary are rated at sixth grade reading level. I went to an Ivy League school - and the average reading level for my freshman class was only 8th grade. AVERAGE level. that means 50% of the class read at 8th grade level or BELOW. Ivy league school.

Subject: RE: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 03:03 PM

If I were part of the 40% who are Guards and reservists, I sure wouldn't want to depend on the other 60%.

AR282 has a very valid point. It doesn't matter what an individual's IQ might be, it is important that all soldiers in a unit be smart enough to protect each other and not put others in harms way. I wouldn't want a buddy with a low IQ.

What nation in their right mind would put a weapon in the hands of a soldier with a low IQ?

We all know the answer to that.

Subject: RE: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 03:02 PM

One thing I'm glad of: Bush's kids aren't in the military. The armed forces have enough trouble as it is.

Subject: RE: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 02:57 PM

One thing to add to this thread and then I pull the pin: Soldiers do not just 'go off to war'. They are sent--by their civilian masters. If those kids are over doing what we--that is the electorate--have said they should be there doing, then maybe we could address this shit to the goddamned politicians, and in the final analysis, ourselves. They are there in our names, too.

Subject: RE: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 02:07 PM

Historically, the Reserves and Guard have been of a higher educational attainment level than the rest of the US Army, and the reasons for this are obvious (although some may have to ponder for a while).

40% of the current troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are Guard and Reserves. And more are on orders....

I suggest that more thinking and less prejudice go into this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 01:59 PM

Join up and you will raise the IQ average by quite a few points.

Subject: RE: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 01:27 PM

If you accept that by definition half the population of the US is below average intelligence, then you have to accept that a minimum of half its military will be so, too. I do not know that Bush screwed up the military. However, I agree that it is screwed up, a process that has been happening from before Bush's time.

Subject: RE: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 01:20 PM

>>When the wages are low, it is understandable that the military will attract people who have few other options.<<

That has nothing to do with IQ. We're talking about recruiting people we normally wouldn't touch with a 10 ft pole.

>>Soldiers who 'shine' in the smarts department tend to be fostered for promotion. Since it is seldom that front-line troops are going to be mostly NCOs and officers, then yes, an army will not necessarily have its 'bright lights' doing the face-to-face contact in a hot war.<<

This is not the argument. The argument is whether it is wise to put ourselves in a situation that we know is dangerous and stupid and that we already had restrictions on for that very reason.

>>Special units choose troops based on attitudes/aptitudes, physical characteristics and mental agility. To expect that a whole army will be made of such soldiers is a dream, IMO.<<

Again, this is not the argument. The argument is that the Army MADE allowances for morons--they allowed a 2% admission rate. That was a maximum, not a minimum. At last count it was 12% and now we don't know what it is because the Army won't say--which is a danger signal right there.

>>It just ani't gonna happen anytime soon.<<

No one is pushing for morons to be eliminated from the ranks, the point is, why are we going backwards and recruiting MORE of them--much more? Because we don't have anyone else.

>>Subsequently, the US is one of the world leaders in producing effective armies because it provides training and equipment to overcome the 'normal' mental abilities of its troops.<<

No they do not. The trend of the military for the last two decades has been to recruit smarter people. That's why they got rid of recruiting dropouts--which used to be normal. The jobs that have arisen in the military since that time are often highly technical and require good if not high aptitude. Even before I was accepted as a recruit, I had to pass a math test at the AFEES station. I do not want to serve on a nuke ship where even one or two reactor operators are Cat IV morons. It would never be allowed and for good and obvious reasons.

In situations where failsafes have to put in to protect people from moronic soldiers not knowing what they're doing, you're talking having to expend more money while getting a less effective system.

>>Soldiers are not necessarily from the shallow end of the gene pool, but generally folks with other options explore them first.<<

They'll certainly do so in the middle of a war we are not winning. A lot of very smart people join the military to get money for college, to get good and free training that can be used as college credits and some do it out of sheer patriotism. The very fact that the Army, which was no academy for the intellectually gifted even before the Invasion, had a 2% limit on low IQ recruits tells you something. If it didn't matter or was even desirable as you seem to be hinting, that limit would never have existed. Moreover, it is a thoughtless sentiment to hold because you're telling some grunt out in the field--don't worry about your life being in the hands of that moron over there--his training takes that into account. I'm sorry, but having been in that situation, it is a very small consolation. Even very smart people screw up what chance do you have when it is some idiot that never would have gotten in if our president hadn't totally screwed up our military?

Subject: RE: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 12:43 PM

PS

I carried an FN for a while and considered pursuing a career in the army. Then I reconsidered--thanks to a few songs and a sergeant who took the time to talk about it with me. In his words, "We'll be here if your music doesn't work out." My 'intelligence' is enough that eventually I graduated university with distinction, so if I sounded like I was demeaning soldiers in the above post, please believe me, I wasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 12:32 PM

When the wages are low, it is understandable that the military will attract people who have few other options. Soldiers who 'shine' in the smarts department tend to be fostered for promotion. Since it is seldom that front-line troops are going to be mostly NCOs and officers, then yes, an army will not necessarily have its 'bright lights' doing the face-to-face contact in a hot war.

Special units choose troops based on attitudes/aptitudes, physical characteristics and mental agility. To expect that a whole army will be made of such soldiers is a dream, IMO. It just ani't gonna happen anytime soon. Subsequently, the US is one of the world leaders in producing effective armies because it provides training and equipment to overcome the 'normal' mental abilities of its troops. Soldiers are not necessarily from the shallow end of the gene pool, but generally folks with other options explore them first.

Subject: RE: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army
From: Sorcha
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 11:57 AM

Well, my brother is Staff Sgt over there, and he has been telling me this for years. I'm outta here now.

Subject: RE: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 11:51 AM

Bobert:

How come you only throw a shit fit when the guests disagree with you?

They are cowards when they present facts that disprove your opinins.

Subject: RE: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 11:41 AM

beating, Bobert. beating. :)

Subject: RE: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 11:04 AM

>>Actually, in spite of the lack of smarts on the grunts, the US military is a very well oil war machine...

Problem is,as we are now seeing in Iraq, is that when it comes to being a well oiled peace machine, it doesn't have a clue... But this isn't the grunt's fault but the higher ups... And it's a problem of "culture" or "office speak" becuase we aren't having the correct converstaions about solving problems other than eating the crap outta other folks...<<

Nobody's blaming the grunts and of course it is the higher-ups' fault--that is pretty much overstating the obvious. The point is, how much are we damaging the military's competence and readiness by relaxing IQ standards simply to get badly needed bodies into the Army? There is no other rationale behind it--we need people and we're willing to take anybody now--anybody. We've already begun accepting dropouts again and people with criminal records. It doesn't take but a handful to screw everything up for everyone else--in fact, that last statement should be the official motto of the American military. Small leaks sink great ships.

Subject: RE: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 10:39 AM

Oh, Bobert, that last typo. Ewwww.

Subject: RE: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 10:28 AM

Actually, in spite of the lack of smarts on the grunts, the US military is a very well oil war machine...

Problem is,as we are now seeing in Iraq, is that when it comes to being a well oiled peace machine, it doesn't have a clue... But this isn't the grunt's fault but the higher ups... And it's a problem of "culture" or "office speak" becuase we aren't having the correct converstaions about solving problems other than eating the crap outta other folks...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army
From: GUEST,Jossip
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 10:19 AM

Peter Kaplan

Fri / 06 Jan 2006

New York would be a crappy place without the Observer

» More Arthur Carter, New York Observer, Newspapers, Peter Kaplan

New York without the New York Observer is like imagining Paris Hilton without her cubic zirconia. Something's just missing from the picture. In all skeevy glory, the Observer has always prided itself on having a bright, if extremely underpaid staff. With Arthur Carter funneling money into his little hobby of his, the NYO keep the city's gossip mill running.

But, we had to slip a little nip David Lee Roth style in our mochas this morning — rumors are flying that our dear paper may be ready to sell. Carter seems to have picked up a new hobby of making sculptures, (huh?) and supposedly doesn't even visit his staff at their new-ish digs. Finding a buyer for NYO, which was once led by Graydon Carter, falls on current editor, Peter Kaplan's shoulders. Which is strange, because he's the editor, and editors shouldn't have to try to sell their own paper, right?

    Kaplan, has been to England to seek a buyer and sources said this week he made an approach to "Bid 'em up" Bruce Wasserstein, the ex-Lazard boss whose media holdings include New York magazine and American Lawyer Media.

No reaction yet from the staff, but we're sure they are almost as pissed as they were when Jessica Joffe ran off, leaving them hot girl-less and to write all their own New Yorker's Diary pieces.

Subject: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 10:04 AM

[The following is an excerpt from Peter Kaplan's "GI Schmo" article that includes the link for the full piece at the bottom of this post. The article deals with the negative ramifications of the Army's relaxing of intellectual mettle in order to make their recruiting targets. While the Army has met its recruitment goals as of late, it is because they have so relaxed aptitude and IQ requirements that the Army will not even officially release their figures on the percentage they now allow in other than to admit it went from 2% to "double digits" (over 12% because that was when they last released percentages). The lowest scoring recruits are dubbed "Category IV" and, when I was in, these were assiduously weeded out in boot camp. We were given various paragraphs and statements to read, then we got a multiple choice of what the paragraph or statement was saying. So even if you're stupid, you can figure it out by process of elimination. Even so, guys failed. The worst part is the test was only SIXTH GRADE LEVEL!!! Now the Army is recruiting these Cat IV morons. These are the guys who will be giving and carrying out orders, repairing equipment, checking readiness, performing preventive maintenance (checking equipment for problems BEFORE something goes wrong), answering emergencies, instituting safety rules and practices, etc. How well do you think they will do when they can't read at a 6th grade level? What does a 300-page tech manual for a state-of-the-art weapons system mean to people like this? Would you want your life to depend on them? Moreover, what does this mean for the future of our military and the nation's ability to meet new challanges or emergencies?

"An army without culture is a dull-witted army and a dull-witted army cannot defeat the enemy."--Mao]

In a RAND Corp. report commissioned by the office of the secretary of defense and published in 2005, military analyst Jennifer Kavanagh* reviewed a spate of recent statistical studies on the various factors that determine military performance—experience, training, aptitude, and so forth—and concluded that aptitude is key. A force "made up of personnel with high AFQT [armed forces aptitude test] scores," Kavanagh writes, "contributes to a more effective and accurate team performance."

The evidence is overwhelming. Take tank gunners. You wouldn't think intelligence would have much effect on the ability to shoot straight, but apparently it does. Replacing a gunner who'd scored Category IV on the aptitude test (ranking in the 10-30 percentile) with one who'd scored Category IIIA (50-64 percentile) improved the chances of hitting targets by 34 percent. (For more on the meaning of the test scores, click here.)

In another study cited by the RAND report, 84 three-man teams from the Army's active-duty signal battalions were given the task of making a communications system operational. Teams consisting of Category IIIA personnel had a 67 percent chance of succeeding. Those consisting of Category IIIB (who'd ranked in the 31-49 percentile on the aptitude test) had a 47 percent chance. Those with Category IV personnel had only a 29 percent chance.

The same study of signal battalions took soldiers who had just taken advanced individual training courses and asked them to troubleshoot a faulty piece of communications gear. They passed if they were able to identify at least two technical problems. Smarts trumped training. Among those who had scored Category I on the aptitude test (in the 93-99 percentile), 97 percent passed. Among those who'd scored Category II (in the 65-92 percentile), 78 percent passed. Category IIIA: 60 percent passed. Category IIIB: 43 percent passed. Category IV: a mere 25 percent passed.

The pattern is clear: The higher the score on the aptitude test, the better the performance in the field. This is true for individual soldiers and for units. Moreover, the study showed that adding one high-scoring soldier to a three-man signals team boosted its chance of success by 8 percent (meaning that adding one low-scoring soldier boosts its chance of failure by a similar margin).

Smarter also turns out to be cheaper. One study examined how many Patriot missiles various Army air-defense units had to fire in order to destroy 10 targets. Units with Category I personnel had to fire 20 missiles. Those with Category II had to fire 21 missiles. Category IIIA: 22. Category IIIB: 23. Category IV: 24 missiles. In other words, to perform the same task, Category IV units chewed up 20 percent more hardware than Category I units. For this particular task, since each Patriot missile costs about $2 million, they also chewed up $8 million more of the Army's procurement budget.

Some perspective here: Each year the Army recruits 80,000 new troops—which amount to 16 percent of its 500,000 active-duty soldiers. Even if 12 percent of recruits were Category IV, not just for October but for the entire coming year, they would swell the ranks of Cat IV soldiers overall by just 1.9 percent (0.12 x 0.16 = .0192).

Then again, viewed from another angle, this would double the Army's least desirable soldiers. These are the soldiers that the Army has long shut out of its ranks; that it is now recruiting avidly, out of sheer desperation; and that—according to the military's own studies—seriously degrade the competence of every unit they end up joining. No, things haven't gone to hell in a handbasket, but they're headed in that direction. Every Army officer knows this. And that's why many of them want the United States to get out of Iraq.

http://www.slate.com/id/2133908/nav/tap1/?GT1=7641