No, you are mistaken, for in actuality you are ignoring what I said. Must be pulling a Spoiled Brat again.
Exceptions such as you mentioned are always available, but if you are of the impression that the majority of people who join Army are doing it as a career choice over other options that would be more lucrative, you are mistaken. Most Army signups are those with few, if any, more workable options. This is why the
average Army enlisteee does not neccesarily represent the cream of the crop in intellect or education or life experience. That's not disdainful to say: these people need a place to go too, and infantry is a great option for them. Certainly, you are free to prove me wrong if you would like to. I'm a reasonable man, and this can again become a reasonable discusssion if you want it to.
By the way...be careful not to muddy this up. Don't use the catch-all term of Military...I am talking Army, and have been from the get-go. You may have tried to include other service branches, but you are mistaken in doing so, as they are not at issue here.
Sounds like you are backpeddling bill. First it was most, now it's average.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:just because someone in the Army has been deployed, that they somehow earn a Doctorate degree in politics, foreign culture, and military strategy..
actually some get doctorates in being doctors... Last i checked you cant be a medic by playing the game operation in the barracks. And its weird how some actually get out and are full fledged doctors. psh they must be some real morons then.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:No, you are mistaken, for in actuality you are ignoring what I said.
wait pot meet kettle? dont you always ignore direct questions? im definitely call you a hypocrite.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote: you are free to prove me wrong if you would like to.
ok im proving you wrong. they are not all ignorant, or only going there because they have no job or education or any other place to go. they are going there because they choose to. and are doing it defend their country. Happy? proved wrong. they applied for the job and got it. just like any job you applied for and got. the only thing is with them, they think about more people than just themselves.
as american to cars as you seem to be, you sure seem to be against those who are defending your american freedom so that you dont have to. i would love for you to give a speech to a group of rangers on your point of view on this.
also since you are talking about the army, seems like you are saying they are not as good as the rest of the branches because they are a bunch of dumb illiterates.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edited Saturday, April 03, 2010 2:13 PM
like i said bill. take the asvab and come back to me. i would love to see the results. seeing as i got 4 questions out of 300 wrong i think i did pretty well. and seeing as NO ONE has ever scored perfect i think i would surpass you on the test. i would also like to say, i was making about 1000 a week before i joined. quit my job to do it. now im making 1200 a month. so yeah it definately wasnt a last resort to me. hell my parents said they would sell the house if i had to join the military for money if i didnt want to join it. but i did. and i like it.
ScottaWhite wrote:Sounds like you are backpeddling bill. First it was most, now it's average.
Oh, it's most. And also average. Just two looks at the same thing, really.
666 night rider (TGM) wrote:like i said bill. take the asvab and come back to me. i would love to see the results. seeing as i got 4 questions out of 300 wrong i think i did pretty well. and seeing as NO ONE has ever scored perfect i think i would surpass you on the test. i would also like to say, i was making about 1000 a week before i joined. quit my job to do it. now im making 1200 a month. so yeah it definately wasnt a last resort to me. hell my parents said they would sell the house if i had to join the military for money if i didnt want to join it. but i did. and i like it.
you big stupid lifeless ignorant dummy, what were you thinking... cant believe how stupid you are to do what you love. im in the same boat. i look at it as its not a job anymore if you love showing up for work.
I shall allow readers of this thread to absorb the information in this post before I proceed, so they can fully understand that the attempts to paint my words incorrectly are are in grave error.
BuiltNBoosted wrote:Take Back the Republican Party wrote:just because someone in the Army has been deployed, that they somehow earn a Doctorate degree in politics, foreign culture, and military strategy..
actually some get doctorates in being doctors... Last i checked you cant be a medic by playing the game operation in the barracks. And its weird how some actually get out and are full fledged doctors. psh they must be some real morons then.
OK, you didn't understand this allegory, but that's likely not a problem...I'm sure many others did. Moving on...
BuiltnBoosted wrote:
dont you always ignore direct questions?
No.
BuiltNBoosted wrote: they are not all ignorant
No, of course not. I do not recall saying they are, either.
BuiltNBoosted wrote:as american to cars as you seem to be, you sure seem to be against those who are defending your american freedom so that you dont have to.
I fail to see where stating the intelligence and/or qualifications of someone on certain affairs is saying this. Your interpretation of my words is incorrect, and an attempt to inflame. I think you're pot-stirring, really.
I'm actually using DoD statisitics in presenting this information, and if you're suggesting they are against American military too, well then...I'm not sure how to address such a contention. I think your hatred is showing, as you are attempting to put words in my mouth I did not say. I can't allow you to do that where this is concerned. This isn't about some punk kid who thinks he knows more about cars than he does now, or likely ever will. This is serious sh!t.
BuiltnBoosted wrote:also since you are talking about the army, seems like you are saying they are not as good as the rest of the branches because they are a bunch of dumb illiterates.
The DoD information I am about to present will bear the Army aspect out, but again...I did not use terminology that can even come close to being interpreted as calling the Army "a bunch of dumb illiterates".
==============================
To all: Once the corrected information in this post has a chance to be read and absorbed, I'll continue and present some DoD data.
i think helen keller presents a better argument than you do.
666 night rider (TGM) wrote:like i said bill. take the asvab and come back to me. i would love to see the results. seeing as i got 4 questions out of 300 wrong i think i did pretty well. and seeing as NO ONE has ever scored perfect i think i would surpass you on the test. i would also like to say, i was making about 1000 a week before i joined. quit my job to do it. now im making 1200 a month. so yeah it definately wasnt a last resort to me. hell my parents said they would sell the house if i had to join the military for money if i didnt want to join it. but i did. and i like it.
Taking this test has noting to do with the points I am raising. I've not questioned your performance on this test, nor do I particularly care what mine would be. I'll stay on point with my contentions, and just offer the DoD information.
You may well be an exceptional infantryman, as we've raised that possibility several times. But, again, you are the one who started this thread to to gleefully wave your racism around, I didn't. We're discussing that, and questioning the assertion that your perspective on all things military and multi-cultural became perfect and well-formed because you were handed a weapon and placed in a combat zone.
Frankly, what you don't seem to realize is, being in such a position really moves you very far away from a moderate, well-considered position. I think your actions demonstrate that you've really gotten into the "kill 'em all, let Allah sort 'em out" mindset. Education, qualifications, and intelligence aside, you're just not an objective observer.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Saturday, April 03, 2010 6:12 PM
Before we get into hard DoD data, this is a reprint:
US Army Lowers Recruiting Standards Due To Iraq
Recruiting shortfalls as young men decide Iraq is not worth dying for have led the US Army to announce yet another lowering of standards on recruits.
The Department of Defense standards on qualification tests call for at least 60 percent Category 1 to 3 (the higher end of testing) and 4 percent Category 4 (the lowest end). The other services follow that standard and the Army National Guard always followed it as well. But the active Army chose a standard of 67 percent in Categories 1-3, and 2 percent Category 4. It now would use the Defense Department guidelines.
This basically lowers the IQ standards for recruits. This will reduce average effectiveness of military units. Perhaps the military can compensate somewhat by assigning lower intellect recruits to Korea and other places where combat is unlikely.
The 6000 to 8000 soldier recruiting shortfall for the last year is the reason behind the policy change. Coming off a recruiting year in which the Army fell short of its goal of 80,000 active-duty soldiers, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey announced that the Army would allow up to 4% of its recruiting class to be Category IV recruits — those who scored between the 16th and 30th percentile (well below average IQ) in the battery of aptitude tests that the Defense Department gives to all potential military personnel.
The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) has 4 sections (known as the Armed Forces Qualification Test or AFQT) that are pretty heavily "g" loaded. In other words, the sections are similar to IQ tests and measure what IQ tests measure. The standards lowering is being done for results from the AFQT subsections of the ASVAB.
A previous report by Steve Sailer mentioned that the category IV recruits are below 92 IQ and the US Army already doubled its category IV intake last year from 1% to 2%. Last year, the Army announced that because of tribulations in meeting recruitment quotas due to the Iraq War, it would now double its share of new soldiers scoring below the 30th percentile.
Since the black IQ average is 85 and 85 is well below 92, that 30th percentile cut-off point makes a substantial majority of blacks ineligible for service in the US military. By one estimate three fifths of blacks and one fifth of whites aren't smart enough to join the military under the tougher pre-Iraq standard. Letting in more lower IQ recruits will especially help with black and Hispanic recruitment.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Saturday, April 03, 2010 5:50 PM
Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey announced that the Army would allow up to 4% of its recruiting class to be Category IV recruits — those who scored between the 16th and 30th percentile (well below average IQ) in the battery of aptitude tests that the Defense Department gives to all potential military personnel.
we still aint talking about most Bill. We're talkin 4%
Nice try on finding that site, but you shoulda read the details.
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
No no, that's just evidence of the most recent reduction in recruiting standards. Such lowering of standards has happened twice since the inception of the Iraq war. Fact is, the average recruit is slipping lower and lower over time due to these relaxing standards, and wasn't exactly cream of the crop even before these changes. It all supports my assertion that mere existence as an infantryman is not an assurance of even
average intelligence.
DoD specs to follow on typical qualifications and intelligence testing results of Army recruits, who represent the lowest overall of the USA's armed forces.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edited Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:12 PM
"[color=bluePerhaps the military can compensate somewhat by assigning lower intellect recruits to Korea and other places where combat is unlikely."
]
like designing forced induction setups for vehicles.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Hey, if they want to deploy some over here, I can definitely keep them busy! I've positions at all skill levels.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Nope. I tested too high to go into military, law enforcement, or fire prevention.
Umm sure, just like Clinton chose not to go military.
I would like to know where your ASVAB score fell. Should not be too worried about it being destroyed since it was probably written on a stone tablet.
In my MOS (7242) we have some of the best and brightest in the military. A 90 ASVAB barely gets you considered for it. I have met the grunts you speak of, I deployed once with them, and did their job as well. Our men at the spears edge often tend to be some of the brightest you will ever meet. In the Corps our brightest line up for infantry duty. DO we go there to kill, no, we go to protect the United States and do as our president demands. We fight to keep each other safe. Semper Fidelis does not mean kill Haji, it means always faithful. You wouldn't know about all of that though.
There are a lot of people who are socio-economically motivated to join the service. Thankfully most are not in the Corps. You find most of those losers for life in jobs in admin, supply, motor T etc etc.
So Bill you have a point about a few who join under those pretenses, but the majority are there for the right reasons.
As for the lowering of recruiting, hmm maybe just maybe the liberal ass press reporting all these terrible things that happen once in a million times, versus how we actually work with the locals and help improve their quality of life. Maybe all the coddling that the parents of your generation have led to less quality. God bless your kids, and I hope they do not fall into this class, but even that a$$hat Obama talking down about our military, now CIC? How can we defend our country when people look to destroy it from within.
Why don't you ask the Haitians how they feel about our military, see if they think the people saving their lives were some backwards country bumpkins.
As to the OP talking about killing, if it is in defense of our men, kill them all. I would rather 100 of them dead to one of ours. Thats why I picked the MOS I was in, so I could help protect our guys on the ground and get them the best support I could.
Mike Demo (Civic Eater) wrote:Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Nope. I tested too high to go into military, law enforcement, or fire prevention.
Umm sure, just like Clinton chose not to go military.
Subtlety is lost on you
What that meant is that the military was not attractive to someone with my intellect and education unless I wished to enter Officer's School. I considered it, but as my racing and business worlds were skyrocketing at that time in my life, I stayed on that path instead. I've no regrets!
Mike Demo (Civic Eater) wrote:There are a lot of people who are socio-economically motivated to join the service. Thankfully most are not in the Corps. You find most of those losers for life in jobs in admin, supply, motor T etc etc.
I appreciate you agreeing with my overall point. However, I don't recall mentioning Marines, only Army.
Mike Demo (Civic Eater) wrote:
In my MOS (7242) we have some of the best and brightest in the military. A 90 ASVAB barely gets you considered for it. I have met the grunts you speak of, I deployed once with them, and did their job as well. Our men at the spears edge often tend to be some of the brightest you will ever meet. In the Corps our brightest line up for infantry duty. DO we go there to kill, no, we go to protect the United States and do as our president demands. We fight to keep each other safe. Semper Fidelis does not mean kill Haji, it means always faithful. You wouldn't know about all of that though.
As for the lowering of recruiting, hmm maybe just maybe the liberal ass press reporting all these terrible things that happen once in a million times, versus how we actually work with the locals and help improve their quality of life. Maybe all the coddling that the parents of your generation have led to less quality. God bless your kids, and I hope they do not fall into this class, but even that a$$hat Obama talking down about our military, now CIC? How can we defend our country when people look to destroy it from within.
Why don't you ask the Haitians how they feel about our military, see if they think the people saving their lives were some backwards country bumpkins.
As to the OP talking about killing, if it is in defense of our men, kill them all. I would rather 100 of them dead to one of ours. Thats why I picked the MOS I was in, so I could help protect our guys on the ground and get them the best support I could.
As for the rest of your offended post, I'd ask that you just chill. You've already agreed with what I am saying here. If you just go back and read only my posts, and ignore all the others who are trying to lash out and put words in my mouth I never said (and certainly did not even imply!), you'd plainly see I am far from anti-military. As such, lecturing me about it is a waste of all of our time.
You'd also see that this thread has evolved into a discussion about how it's a mistake to assume any Army grunt is an expert in military strategies and international relations just because he or she has been trained and then deployed. Let's please stay on topic.
i kinda figured that joining any branch of the military IS employment; rather than not being able to find employment...i mean...you got a job, right? you get paid, you get benefits, and you can retire from it after 20 years and get a pension at 55 and so on...so how is that a last resort? i mean, if someone wanted to be a cop; they didn't become a cop because they couldn't become a dentist.
and you'll find, that anyone who does any job for the military, is better qualified to do that job in the civilian world than you are; i mean, i'm only considering hiring trends in the medical field, IT field, law enforcement, food services, automotive industry, aircraft industry, seacraft industry, construction, so on, and so forth.
this really isn't a matter of military people being inferior to civilians in anything. it's really a matter of military people being superior to you in everything. we do your job AND get shot at during. think you're so qualified?
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:i kinda figured that joining any branch of the military IS employment; rather than not being able to find employment...i mean...you got a job, right? you get paid, you get benefits, and you can retire from it after 20 years and get a pension at 55 and so on...so how is that a last resort? i mean, if someone wanted to be a cop; they didn't become a cop because they couldn't become a dentist.
and you'll find, that anyone who does any job for the military, is better qualified to do that job in the civilian world than you are; i mean, i'm only considering hiring trends in the medical field, IT field, law enforcement, food services, automotive industry, aircraft industry, seacraft industry, construction, so on, and so forth.
this really isn't a matter of military people being inferior to civilians in anything. it's really a matter of military people being superior to you in everything. we do your job AND get shot at during. think you're so qualified?
You appear to be missing the point. Let's review: In many cases, the armed forces
are a last resort for those who cannot find gainful employment in the private sector. The average I.Q. of enlisted people, especially Army, has been slipping, and is now below the average for the general population. This is a troubling fact, but a fact nonetheless.
The point made, that I contested, was that someone undergoing basic training and then being sent to a foreign nation to fight automatically makes them more knowledgeable on world affairs and cultural aspects of said nation than anyone else. I said this is not true, and offered evidence as to why it is not, which led to the discussion of the average recruit's intelligence and/or qualifications.
I take no exception with anything you just posted, except that none of it is truly relevant to the points I have now reiterated once again. If you'd like to refute my points, they are again repeated in this post. Have at!
the last resort for those who cannot find gainful employment private, or public, is theft or starvation.
because you say "fact" does not indeed mean so. i challenge you to prove that the avg IQ of enlisted people, especially Army, has been slipping below the average of the general population. the ONLY considered credible source, will be from a .mil or .gov domain. no forums, no wikipedia, no BS. Go for it.
how many foreign lands have you been to; where you must distinguish between the local populate who you can trust, and who you cannot trust? in those places, you learn those people, and you learn them quickly. you fail to realize, how vast the US armed forces are, and how many people are across the globe, and how many of those people are friends and keep in touch while on separate continents and exchange information, knowledge, and culture of those lands.
so before you go spouting off some diatribe about the geopolicital war machine; kick back and consider this: who the hell are you? what the hell have you done? and what the hell makes you an expert on world affairs, cultural aspects, and the military?
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:the last resort for those who cannot find gainful employment private, or public, is theft or starvation.
because you say "fact" does not indeed mean so. i challenge you to prove that the avg IQ of enlisted people, especially Army, has been slipping below the average of the general population. the ONLY considered credible source, will be from a .mil or .gov domain. no forums, no wikipedia, no BS. Go for it.
Not a problem. Would you accept Department of Defense data as dependable enough? If so, vist their website and look into it. You'll see that this is indeed the case. Should you find any data that supports a different conclusion, please let me know here. I doubt you will, for it is in DoD reports, recruiting standards, and data that I have determined this.
Why is this a key aspect? Only because it supports my contention that the average Army infantryman is less likely to be an expert on, well...
anything than even the average man on the street. The mere fact that he's then been shipped into a hostile environment does not instantly confer expert status for him on that environment's complex interactions. Frankly, if anything, being exposed to the hostile environment in this fashion practically insists that he or she will have a very skewed view of the environment. It's a very logical premise, no matter how much it may anger you to hear.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, April 28, 2010 7:06 AM
Refute you 1. A younger workforce (and subsequently, a more employed workforce)
The active duty military comprises a younger workforce than the civilian sector. Service policies and legal restrictions account for the relative youthfulness of the military. Eighty-seven percent of FY 1998 new active duty recruits were 18 through 24 years of age, compared to 35 percent of civilians within the military age range of 17-35. Almost half (45 percent) of the active duty enlisted force was 17-24 years old, in contrast to about 15 percent of the civilian labor force. Officers were older than those in the enlisted ranks (mean ages 34 and 27, respectively), but they too were younger than their civilian counterparts, college graduates in the work force 21-49 years old.
Refute you 2. This article goes on about how the military does not disproportionately represent the poor either.
Recruits actually have much higher average aptitudes than the general youth population, Carr said. In fiscal 2005, 67 percent of recruits scored above the 60th percentile on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. The test is designed so that the average young person will score 50 percent, he explained.
But high achievement on the test isn't new, Carr said. Sixty percent of new enlistees have scored at or above the 50 percentile -- the military's benchmark for recruits -- every year since 1985.
AVG Military IQ is 105. AFQT and ASVAB are administerded to high school students as well as adults, and from that data this is extrapolated. 50th percentile is average, so it stands to reason, that since the average IQ is 102.7 (for white males) then the average IQ for military is 105. It's called math.
Sixty-eight percent of recruits scored at or above the 50th percentile on the AFQT (Categories I–IIIA). Air Force recruits scored higher than those of the other three Services. Seventy-eight percent of Air Force recruits scored in Categories I–IIIA, compared to 68 percent of Army, and 64 percent of both Navy and Marine Corps recruits.
And I'll even break my own rules, so you can have something to try and pick apart.
Converting SAT scores to IQs is a shaky process, but that would suggest about, oh, 113 to 121 for the average officer in the various services back in 1975-1985. (Don't take that as the final word.)
now, refute those, with your defense.gov links...oh wait..mine are defense.gov links extrapolated from the trash you claim to have determined your expert findings from.
God damn, did I get under your skin! You need to work on intelligent discourse, my friend...at leat, the unemotional kind, which is the only kind that really works. I've not seen so much vag sand since Quik's last post! I will definitely claim the upper hand in terms of encouraging your inner infant to surface, but that's a hollow victory. I want to debate.
First thing I'll do is clean up your post where it doesn't sound like some recently-spurned teenage girlfriend. Then we'll get on to the important business of comparing opinions, and most importantly, FACTS. By the way, while your 'meh' attitude is indeed a FACT, it's completely out of place in an attempt to discuss something of this importance. Suggest that you leave the post cleaned up, and resist the urge to go drag your crotch down the beach again as we continue. Let's get down to it!
============================================
Kevin's Post in Adult Format:
Kevin wrote:Refute you 1. A younger workforce (and subsequently, a more employed workforce)
The active duty military comprises a younger workforce than the civilian sector. Service policies and legal restrictions account for the relative youthfulness of the military. Eighty-seven percent of FY 1998 new active duty recruits were 18 through 24 years of age, compared to 35 percent of civilians within the military age range of 17-35. Almost half (45 percent) of the active duty enlisted force was 17-24 years old, in contrast to about 15 percent of the civilian labor force. Officers were older than those in the enlisted ranks (mean ages 34 and 27, respectively), but they too were younger than their civilian counterparts, college graduates in the work force 21-49 years old.
I'm curious what this addresses in terms of the debate...what point did I make that you are applying this to? I'm not being asinine, just asking for a clarification
Kevin wrote:Refute you 2. This article goes on about how the military does not disproportionately represent the poor either.
Recruits actually have much higher average aptitudes than the general youth population, Carr said. In fiscal 2005, 67 percent of recruits scored above the 60th percentile on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. The test is designed so that the average young person will score 50 percent, he explained.
But high achievement on the test isn't new, Carr said. Sixty percent of new enlistees have scored at or above the 50 percentile -- the military's benchmark for recruits -- every year since 1985.
AVG Military IQ is 105. AFQT and ASVAB are administerded to high school students as well as adults, and from that data this is extrapolated. 50th percentile is average, so it stands to reason, that since the average IQ is 102.7 (for white males) then the average IQ for military is 105.
Sixty-eight percent of recruits scored at or above the 50th percentile on the AFQT (Categories I–IIIA). Air Force recruits scored higher than those of the other three Services. Seventy-eight percent of Air Force recruits scored in Categories I–IIIA, compared to 68 percent of Army, and 64 percent of both Navy and Marine Corps recruits.
You mention test scores acorss the entire military. The points we are discussing in this thread are about Army only. Would you be willing to reformulate your "refutation" on that premise?
Kevin wrote:Apparent third point from Kevin:
Converting SAT scores to IQs is a shaky process, but that would suggest about 113 to 121 for the average officer in the various services back in 1975-1985. (Don't take that as the final word.)
Seems you moved away from Army recruits here too. Officers are not being discussed.
OK, your turn.
Be nice! If youc an't be nice, just be decent.
No use in arguing with a wall. I presented credible sources, you continue to crawfish. I provided common facts to debunk the myths that are usually orally defecated regarding military personnel.
I will take that as your conceding that you, in fact, do NOT have any credible sources, also to concede that you did not even bother to read those links, and that you also concede that you, of your own want, have thought you have gotten under my skin.
Really, until you post something credible that states that even the Army's average IQ is lower than 68th percentile average Americans, you have lost, and will continue to have lost this argument. Continuation will only serve to make you look more like a moron, and make me look like a moron trainer.
You talk trash, say something about my sand being full of vaginas, but plain and simple, you haven't backed up your argument; only continued to orally defecate and give us a glimpse of what is inside that rectum between your ears.
oh, and nice tat night rider.
