Hacker News Reader

Comment by gaika | Hacker News Reader

Statistics :( Just add another variable - officer or soldier - and the conclusion can be reversed. Clearly no causation here: higher percentage of officers died, and officers were smarter.

View on HN

Thank you.

I was about to make the same comment and also point out that even int the most un-brainy situations brains help.

I recall a study that showed higher IQ toddlers are less likely to die in an accident. Even in our super child safe words, even with toddlers, brains go a long way.

But then again higher IQ might correlate with higher family income which correlates with more parental attention... that's statistics for you.

I bet there will be a study that shows how smarter people lost more during current crisis.

In the same income / net work category, maybe. Otherwise, this would just be because of the ridiculously high correlation between IQ and income.

Even within income groups, intelligence and the ability to save (and invest) some of your earnings might be correlated. In that case, smarter people would lose more when the market tanks.

Higher IQ toddlers are likely to have higher IQ parents who may be less likely to leave them unattended at the swimming pool, to have dangerous objects around the house, etc.

  Officers and non-commissioned officers made up for about 7% and 20% of war deaths respectively.

So officers made up 27% of deaths there, not a higher percentage.

But there were at least 10 times more soldiers than officers. That means officer's death risk was at least 3 times higher than soldier's. They also mention that average IQ of a soldier that died was 95.

As someone who doesn't know much about military strategy, I find it surprising that officers are more likely to die in combat (or were in WWII, at least). Isn't it enlisted guys who ride at the tip of a dangerous advance?

Another breakdown is needed, but my guess is that it is air force pilots and bomber crew that skew the stats. Read/see "catch 22".

Officers are the most targeted, that why the officer's uniform recently looks very much like soldier's - to make them harder to snipe.

Most officers in WW2, certainly in Britain, were enlisted rather than career officers. This particularly applies to the lower ranks of officer, such as captain and lieutenant.

Leading from the front was common, for officers up to the rank of General, because it was the best way of knowing what was going on. There was no "blue force tracker" in those days!)

But Sergeants and Corporals are non-commissioned officers, and they are fighting in the muck with the rest of the enlisted soldiers.

If you consider the size of the average squad led by these non-coms (certainly larger than 5 people), then 20% of deaths is still probably not too good, but from what I know these people don't lead from behind.

Officers made up 7%. A non-commissioned officer is simply an enlisted person that has stayed in service long enough to be promoted. Commitment is in no way indicative of intelligence. In some cases it's the opposite.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com