You think passing qualification means you're in? It doesn't work that way. Qualification just means a barrier test to judge suitability at attempting selection. Even if you're part of that lucky 25%~ who pass selection/assessment, you can still be dropped anytime during the reinforcement cycle (the part where they actually train you to be special) and returned to your unit for something like a safety violation, standard fail or mental unsuitability - intelligence. Psychological testing plays a major part in the selection of a SF candidate gone are the days of brawn over brains.The idea that special forces soldiers have to be particularly smart has no foundation. Qualification is not based on raw intellectual ability.
When the military can't find enough people that meet the standards, they just lower the standards.You guys know that the military has an entrance exam right? If you can't score well enough, they don't want you. Dumb people do not get into the service.
I think most of this discussion resulted from misunderstanding what I meant when I used the word "dumb." I only meant it relatively. People who score in the bottom half for intellectual ability are dumb relative to people in the top half.You guys know that the military has an entrance exam right? If you can't score well enough, they don't want you. Dumb people do not get into the service.
I assume you were never in the military because of the fictitious data you just claimed.When the military can't find enough people that meet the standards, they just lower the standards.
Hence the recruitment of females, gays, losers too unmotivated to finish high school or get a GED, and, of course, those with criminal records or psychological "issues".
Our military "leadership" lies as much as our politicians do, so if you want the "truth", you've got to talk to the boys on the line....as usual.
I would put money on the average military person being of higher IQ than the average citizen.I think most of this discussion resulted from misunderstanding what I meant when I used the word "dumb." I only meant it relatively. People who score in the bottom half for intellectual ability are dumb relative to people in the top half.
Could you cite some .gov sources in defence of your claims?When the military can't find enough people that meet the standards, they just lower the standards.
Hence the recruitment of females, gays, losers too unmotivated to finish high school or get a GED, and, of course, those with criminal records or psychological "issues".
Our military "leadership" lies as much as our politicians do, so if you want the "truth", you've got to talk to the boys on the line....as usual.
Since they purposely exclude people who are mentally retarded and have other severe intellectual disabilities, you're probably right. That's not a very fair comparison.I would put money on the average military person being of higher IQ than the average citizen.
Every person in the military has either graduated high school or has a GED. They won't let you join otherwise. I don't consider people who haven't graduated HS as being severely mentally retarded though. Then again I don't look down on everyone as inferior either.Since they purposely exclude people who are mentally retarded and have other severe intellectual disabilities, you're probably right. That's not a very fair comparison.
this would depend on what each race/nationality profile they are..jews score higher overall on IQ.I would put money on the average military person being of higher IQ than the average citizen.
That is pretty racist of you.this would depend on what each race/nationality profile they are..jews score higher overall on IQ.
Atheists say the darndest things...this would depend on what each race/nationality profile they are..jews score higher overall on IQ.
Survived 20 years, much to the chagrin of some of our fellow posters I'm sure. Matter of fact, today is the 24th anniversary of my first combat jump into a lovely little place down south. I was jumping out of airplanes while a lot of you were jumping out of diapers, and I bet I'm not the only one on this forum like that either.I assume you were never in the military because of the fictitious data you just claimed.
Ok, so what's your comment?I think most commenting here have no idea of how military retirement, VA disability, and the plethora of other benefits actually pan out. As a veteran and a former spouse I've been around the military my entire adult life and I can tell you that if all were transparent there'd be more cuts. This is a very politically incorrect topic that people get butthurt over very easily but as some who did my time I feel I have a right to comment and don't give a shit what others think about it.
How exactly is a woman or a gay man/woman a weak link? Are you saying sexual preference is a direct correlation to physical attributes? May I offer that most gay men are 10 times more physically fit than the average straight man. How is a woman a weaker link? She can pull a trigger just as fast, sometimes faster than any man. She can jump out of plane just as well. I know, I've jumped out with a few. Sure, they can't lift a guy on their own, but how often have you lifted a soldier on your own, threw them over your shoulder and walked them safety? I'm betting none.Clinton, and gang, opted to allow greater access to gays and females, which in turn weakened the force by adding weaker links in the chain throughout a greater portion of the military. Ever work in a place that had bad office romances that made life miserable for everyone? We didn't have to worry about that before some dumb asses decided that "equality" was more important than QUALITY troops.
If they did not put the smartest people in the most dangerous jobs, the casualties would have been staggering.For everyone one of those leaders there were thousands more that did 2-4 and came out older. I'm not saying all, I'm just saying it was a rule of thumb in those days.
If your second paragraph is what he is saying then it's just an opinion and I don't agree. If you think the military puts their best and brightest on the front lines, then I will respectfully disagree with you too.
I'm making no such equation. You have can not begin to fathom the unpredictable nature of combat, therefore you believe soldiering requires only physical attributes, discipline and the ability to follow orders. Nothing is more important than the ability to solve problems while under extreme stress. Mistakes cost lives.You're equating being trainable and giving/following orders with intelligence. That makes no sense. Being able to perform a certain maneuver or being able to lead a unit has little to do with intellectual ability.
I'm certainly not arguing that "infantryman are dumb simply because they are in combat arms." You're pulling that out of your ass.
How can a person serve 20 years on active duty then the day after he retires he goes to the VA and gets a disability rating of 80% then gets hired on as a full time permanent federal civilian? I work with this guy and even though he's 80% disabled he can still work full time and go skiing every weekend. The system is ripe for abuse but all anybody ever wants to bring up is how Little Johnny and his family might starve to death and how Little Johnny is getting shot at. The truth is most never see combat and all are well compensated and every single one volunteered.Ok, so what's your comment?
Candidly expressing your dumb opinion is not truth.What separates me from most is that I'm not unwilling to speak the truth. Truth is truth. Hate it as you please; deny it all you want. You cannot alter truth.