Hacker News Reader

Comment by logicalmonster | Hacker News Reader

Often when IQ is brought up, it seems that HN leaps to explain why those tests aren't accurate, don't really mean anything, etc. Is anybody going to make that case here?

View on HN

The article goes to lengths to explain that the aptitude tests for these draftees were regularly faked. The point was that people who were manifestly mentally unsuited for the military (whether because of a physical disability or lack of education due to poverty, etc.) were intentionally drafted; nobody is required to have a particular opinion on IQ to think that was probably a bad idea.

I don't understand what you want. If you've already read all that before, what else do you want to know? Why not post it yourself?

There is some evidence to indicate that the IQ-/life outcome relationship is stronger on the left half of the bell curve. That is to say, the improvement from 85 to 100 IQ is higher than the improvement from 100 to 115.

In cases where the test misfired, you would had higher IQ people recruited into canon fodder positions where they chance of dying is higher then normal.

Army aptitude tests do not test IQ directly. They test general knowledge (like basic math), ability to follow directions, that sort of thing. IQ is not the only mental issue that makes you unsuitable.

So kinda, reliability of those tests is not really relevant.

Those tests do not mean anything once you clear a lower bound somewhere between 70 and 90. N N Taleb summed it up best as "IQ is a measure of unintelligence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com