The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"McNamara's Folly: the Use of Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Amazon:

McNamara’s Folly: The Use of Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War
by Hamilton Gregory (Author)

In 1966, President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara were desperate to find additional troops for the Vietnam War, but they feared that they would alienate middle-class voters if they drafted college boys or sent Reservists and National Guardsmen to Vietnam. So, on October 1, 1966, McNamara lowered mental standards and inducted thousands of low-IQ men.

Altogether, 354,000 of these men were taken into the Armed Forces and a large number of them were sent into combat. Many military men, including William Westmoreland, the commanding general in Vietnam, viewed McNamara’s program as a disaster. Because many of the substandard men were incompetent in combat, they endangered not only themselves but their comrades as well. Their death toll was appallingly high.

In addition to low-IQ men, tens of thousands of other substandard troops were inducted, including criminals, misfits, and men with disabilities.

This book tells the story of the men caught up in McNamara’s folly.

There’s another military cognitive testing fiasco story from the following decade. In about 1976, the Pentagon fouled up how to grade the AFQT enlistment exam, letting in lots of new recruits who didn’t score high enough. Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) frequently called in military officials to explain to Congress why Nunn shouldn’t take seriously what long-serving sergeants were telling him: something’s not right with a lot of the new recruits. Finally, in 1980, the DoD discovered its mistake and renormed the AFQT using the 1979 National Longitudinal Study of Youth sample (from which much of the data in The Bell Curve is drawn).

 
Hide 100 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. from Amazon?

    How about:

    “Got in a little home town jam…”

    • Replies: @bomag
    @anony-mouse

    Also, Steve Earl shoehorns in a sweet little line in Copperhead Road,

    "They draft the White trash first 'round here anyway."

  2. So how did the higher and capitalist IQ South lose to the lower and communist IQ north? And how did slightly higher IQ french troops lose in Dien Bien Phu? And how did high IQ southern Chinese lose to lower IQ northern Chinese and Mongols?

    • Replies: @Lot
    @rvg


    So how did the higher and capitalist IQ South lose to the lower and communist IQ north?
     
    Vietnamese in the North are more closely related to the high IQ south Chinese. In the South they likely have more of a mixture of the native Champa population, who are closer to Cambodians.

    Of course this is complicated by selective migration of high IQ villagers to the cities under the French and patterns of modern era Chinese migration to Vietnam.
    , @bomag
    @rvg

    And how did slightly higher IQ french troops lose in Dien Bien Phu?

    Well, the race is not always to the swift...

    Giap's men came close to bolting from the crude conditions. They had the advantage of terrain, numbers, local support, and artillery (the game changer).

    The French had really bad tactics, support, and intelligence. Their plan was to show that if they could prevail at Dien Bien Phu, they could prevail anywhere.

    , @Bryan Bell
    @rvg

    To quote Steve, quoting Red Dawn "Because we live here."
    I can't comment China.

  3. That must be why Iraq War turned out so great. Higher IQ soldiers.

    PS. What accounts for the dumb war planning? Surely, Bush and co. have higher than average IQ.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @Anon

    "PS. What accounts for the dumb war planning? Surely, Bush and co. have higher than average IQ."

    Not a chance.

    Replies: @Jim

    , @Jack D
    @Anon

    The Iraq War turned out great in this sense: combat deaths were 10% of losses in Vietnam and 1% of losses in WWII. In some years, losses were less than in the peacetime years of the Cold War. A lot of this can be explained by the fact that we had a smaller, smarter army in Iraq.

    Replies: @Anon, @dearieme, @Drakejax, @MarkinLA, @rod1963, @Andrew Ryan

    , @Ed
    @Anon

    The problem with Iraq wasn't the military, Saddam's forces were routed within a month. The issue is and has always been governing what happened next.

    Thats a political failure not a military failure.

    , @JohnnyWalker123
    @Anon


    Surely, Bush and co. have higher than average IQ.
     
    Doubtful.
  4. Low-IQ infantrymen as cannon fodder are not new today and weren’t new in the Vietnam war either.

    In his superb classic book The Sharp End John Ellis presents a wealth of statistics showing that low-IQ enlistees and conscripts were relegated to the infantry whose units suffered something like 75% of all battle casualties.

    Ellis also shows this for British forces as well. The British, much harder pressed for manpower than was the United States, consigned their lowest-IQ personnel to the Pioneer Corps whose members were menial laborers to dig ditches, roll airfields level, fill sandbags, erect fencing, clean latrines, &c. By late 1943 even the United States had run out of intellectually qualified conscripts and had begun to draft men not up to the lowest standards that had applied earlier in the war.

    Here’s WWII Marine Corps infantry veteran Robert Leckie in his book Helmet For My Pillow:

    “Intelligence, intelligence, intelligence. Keep it up, America, keep telling your youth that mud and danger are fit only for intellectual pigs. Keep on saying that only the stupid are fit to sacrifice, that America must be defended by the low-brow and enjoyed by the high-brow. Keep vaunting head over heart, and soon the head will arrive at the complete folly of any kind of fight and meekly surrender the treasure to the first bandit with enough heart to demand it.”

    • Replies: @Romanian
    @Auntie Analogue


    Keep vaunting head over heart, and soon the head will arrive at the complete folly of any kind of fight and meekly surrender the treasure to the first bandit with enough heart to demand it.
     
    Wow, that's actually prescient.

    Replies: @Difference Maker

    , @Sean
    @Auntie Analogue

    Most of the US army infantry (who did the lion's share of the dying) in WW2 were white Southerners.

  5. “War, but they feared that they would alienate middle-class voters if they drafted college boys or sent Reservists and National Guardsmen to Vietnam”

    Vietnam – the US somehow fighting a colonial war it didn’t even want. Cold War paranoia.

    Jeb Bush reminds me of this – his bro *kept us safe*. It’s disrespectful to reflect on the fact we went to war based on bs. And that it didn’t accomplish anything.

  6. How do the WW2 soldiers’ IQ compare to Vietnam era soldiers and how do the standards compare?

    • Replies: @Auntie Analogue
    @greysquirrell


    "How do the WW2 soldiers’ IQ compare to Vietnam era soldiers and how do the standards compare?"

     

    They compare identically.

    Early in both wars the military took in the best quality human material; later in the wars the military lowered the standards and inducted a lot of far from the best quality human material.

    In the two wars the reasons for this shift differ: in WWII the nation(s) simply ran out of the best quality human material - the shortage was actual; while in the Vietnam War the best quality human material was exempted from induction - the shortage was artificial. In both instances the military was compelled to induct lower quality personnel.

    The actual WWII & Vietnam War standards for IQ (or AFQT) don't matter, as in both instances the bar was set high early and later lowered, and in both instances the military inducted from the then-available pool of manpower. The IQ ranges of those two wars' manpower pools may not have been exactly the same (Flynn effect) but their graphs are parallel as are the graphs of the intelligence of the two wars' inductees.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @sturmrugergp100

  7. Didn’t they make a movie about this with Tom Hanks in the 90s?

  8. Once I asked an army veteran of vietnam during the 1970’s if he thought platoon, full metal jacket, etc were very realistic. He said they weren’t, not at all, and neither was every other war movie he’d seen but with one eerily accurate exception. This movie is exactly what being in the army was like, he said. The movie is Stripes.

  9. • Replies: @Seminumerical
    @JohnnyWalker123

    A bit over the top but pretty much what I think of Rosie myself.

    Replies: @Big Bill

    , @PistolPete
    @JohnnyWalker123

    I laughed HARD! Think he'll be like that with Clinton?

    If so, I can't wait!!

    P.s.
    I feel like a school girl in love when it comes to Trump. He's got Buchanan ideas but in an Alpha personality that drives the "great and the good" INSANE. Doesn't come much better. I can't wait until he hires Steve,either..

    Good times are a comin...

    Replies: @Anonymous

  10. @JohnnyWalker123
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d32577Hom08

    Replies: @Seminumerical, @PistolPete

    A bit over the top but pretty much what I think of Rosie myself.

    • Replies: @Big Bill
    @Seminumerical

    Bare knuckle politics. It reminds me of the early 19th Century when rolling fistfights broke out on the floor of Congress during debates.

  11. @Anon
    That must be why Iraq War turned out so great. Higher IQ soldiers.

    PS. What accounts for the dumb war planning? Surely, Bush and co. have higher than average IQ.

    Replies: @Realist, @Jack D, @Ed, @JohnnyWalker123

    “PS. What accounts for the dumb war planning? Surely, Bush and co. have higher than average IQ.”

    Not a chance.

    • Replies: @Jim
    @Realist

    The assertion that Bush had an IQ less than average is utter nonsense. There is no way an individual with an IQ of less than 100 could become a member of the US elite. All the defendents at Nuremberg were tested for IQ by US psychologists. Their average IQ was 128. The range was from 106 (Streicher) to 143 (Schacht). Second lowest was 113 (Kaltenbrunner).
    Although it would be nice to have more data on elite IQ the Nuremberg IQ tests probably give a fairly good idea of the IQ of the elites of Western countries. In the case of the Nuremberg defendents their average IQ exceeded that of the German population by between one and half to two standard deviations.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Realist, @rod1963

  12. Low IQ troops may not have helped in the Vietnam War but the rot was with the high IQ leaders. Read McMasters’ Dereliction of Duty.

    BTW, the flawed U.S. Grand Strategy in Vietnam was essentially based on Maxwell Taylor’s highly influential book, amongst the Democrats, The Uncertain Trumpet. If I remember correctly, Taylor was near top of his class and proficient in several languages. It’s pretty certain that he had a high IQ.

    McNamara and his “Whizz Kids” were also pretty bright, but not when it came to fighting a war.

    Seriously, Steve, I think you’ve got to get around to reading Keith Stanovich. He is a legitimate cognitive researcher whose specialty is understanding why high IQ sometimes leads to stupid. The Scientific American ran an article by him which you might want to peruse.

    “Rational and Irrational Thought: The Thinking that IQ Tests Miss.” Google it up.

    • Replies: @the cruncher
    @Slumlord

    For convenience: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rational-and-irrational-thought-the-thinking-that-iq-tests-miss

    , @Stan d Mute
    @Slumlord


    Rational and Irrational Thought: The Thinking that IQ Tests Miss.” Google it up.
     
    I'm much more concerned about the .25 correlation on his "mindware" vs IQ than on disjunctive vs IQ. If true, this explains how "intelligent" leftists happen. And how "smart" average guys exist. Why isn't this tested with IQ? And how does this correlate with g?
  13. @JohnnyWalker123
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d32577Hom08

    Replies: @Seminumerical, @PistolPete

    I laughed HARD! Think he’ll be like that with Clinton?

    If so, I can’t wait!!

    P.s.
    I feel like a school girl in love when it comes to Trump. He’s got Buchanan ideas but in an Alpha personality that drives the “great and the good” INSANE. Doesn’t come much better. I can’t wait until he hires Steve,either..

    Good times are a comin…

    • Agree: JohnnyWalker123
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @PistolPete


    I feel like a school girl in love when it comes to Trump. He’s got Buchanan ideas but in an Alpha personality that drives the “great and the good” INSANE. Doesn’t come much better.
     
    There's a word for that: jock-sniffer.
  14. @Slumlord
    Low IQ troops may not have helped in the Vietnam War but the rot was with the high IQ leaders. Read McMasters' Dereliction of Duty.

    BTW, the flawed U.S. Grand Strategy in Vietnam was essentially based on Maxwell Taylor's highly influential book, amongst the Democrats, The Uncertain Trumpet. If I remember correctly, Taylor was near top of his class and proficient in several languages. It's pretty certain that he had a high IQ.

    McNamara and his "Whizz Kids" were also pretty bright, but not when it came to fighting a war.

    Seriously, Steve, I think you've got to get around to reading Keith Stanovich. He is a legitimate cognitive researcher whose specialty is understanding why high IQ sometimes leads to stupid. The Scientific American ran an article by him which you might want to peruse.

    "Rational and Irrational Thought: The Thinking that IQ Tests Miss." Google it up.

    Replies: @the cruncher, @Stan d Mute

  15. @greysquirrell
    How do the WW2 soldiers' IQ compare to Vietnam era soldiers and how do the standards compare?

    Replies: @Auntie Analogue

    “How do the WW2 soldiers’ IQ compare to Vietnam era soldiers and how do the standards compare?”

    They compare identically.

    Early in both wars the military took in the best quality human material; later in the wars the military lowered the standards and inducted a lot of far from the best quality human material.

    In the two wars the reasons for this shift differ: in WWII the nation(s) simply ran out of the best quality human material – the shortage was actual; while in the Vietnam War the best quality human material was exempted from induction – the shortage was artificial. In both instances the military was compelled to induct lower quality personnel.

    The actual WWII & Vietnam War standards for IQ (or AFQT) don’t matter, as in both instances the bar was set high early and later lowered, and in both instances the military inducted from the then-available pool of manpower. The IQ ranges of those two wars’ manpower pools may not have been exactly the same (Flynn effect) but their graphs are parallel as are the graphs of the intelligence of the two wars’ inductees.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Auntie Analogue

    Eddie Slovik is the poster child for lower standards. His draft board in Detroit rejected him in 1943. In 1944, under pressure, they reluctantly accepted him. By then, we were overextended.

    Slovik, a petty criminal, was unfit for service, more for reasons of character than of intelligence. He knew it better than did the people at the top.

    Replies: @Sean, @The Man from K Street, @Big Bill

    , @sturmrugergp100
    @Auntie Analogue

    My uncle, USMC KIA Vietnam 1965, was one of the early high bar. After the Island, he was sent to learn Vietnamese. Only 20,000 servicemen of all the branches in the Vietnam era were trained out of 2.7 million who served in country. Those 20,000 were surely the right side of the curve.

  16. So McNamara was pro-eugenics?

  17. Anedotally, the stories I have heard from my friends who were officers in the Vietnam war certainly suggest that the troops they had were among the least prepared, least motivated, least trainable and most drug addicted that any US Army has gone to war with. One obvious factor is that in Vietnam inner city blacks made up a significant level of the troops. In WWII blacks generally weren’t allowed in combat units.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Peter Akuleyev

    From one of the two reviews on www.vvaw.org/veteran :


    A low-IQ soldier played a deadly joke for two days pulling the pin of a hand grenade and then rolling it toward his mates. Nothing happened since he had disabled it pulling out the detonator cylinder. His mates beat him each time for scaring them finally yelling at him: "Never again, Bozo!" The third day they muttered and kept eating ignoring him as they wouldn't fall for the same lame gag. When he did the same trick, this time he had forgotten to disable it. The grenade exploded killing two soldiers and wounding several others. Rather than send him to the States to try him for manslaughter, they made him perform risks like walking point exposing him to booby-traps, detonating a landmine, or sniper bait.

     

  18. @Auntie Analogue
    Low-IQ infantrymen as cannon fodder are not new today and weren't new in the Vietnam war either.

    In his superb classic book The Sharp End John Ellis presents a wealth of statistics showing that low-IQ enlistees and conscripts were relegated to the infantry whose units suffered something like 75% of all battle casualties.

    Ellis also shows this for British forces as well. The British, much harder pressed for manpower than was the United States, consigned their lowest-IQ personnel to the Pioneer Corps whose members were menial laborers to dig ditches, roll airfields level, fill sandbags, erect fencing, clean latrines, &c. By late 1943 even the United States had run out of intellectually qualified conscripts and had begun to draft men not up to the lowest standards that had applied earlier in the war.

    Here's WWII Marine Corps infantry veteran Robert Leckie in his book Helmet For My Pillow:

    "Intelligence, intelligence, intelligence. Keep it up, America, keep telling your youth that mud and danger are fit only for intellectual pigs. Keep on saying that only the stupid are fit to sacrifice, that America must be defended by the low-brow and enjoyed by the high-brow. Keep vaunting head over heart, and soon the head will arrive at the complete folly of any kind of fight and meekly surrender the treasure to the first bandit with enough heart to demand it."
     

    Replies: @Romanian, @Sean

    Keep vaunting head over heart, and soon the head will arrive at the complete folly of any kind of fight and meekly surrender the treasure to the first bandit with enough heart to demand it.

    Wow, that’s actually prescient.

    • Replies: @Difference Maker
    @Romanian

    The famous quote:"The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards."

  19. @Romanian
    @Auntie Analogue


    Keep vaunting head over heart, and soon the head will arrive at the complete folly of any kind of fight and meekly surrender the treasure to the first bandit with enough heart to demand it.
     
    Wow, that's actually prescient.

    Replies: @Difference Maker

    The famous quote:”The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”

  20. @Seminumerical
    @JohnnyWalker123

    A bit over the top but pretty much what I think of Rosie myself.

    Replies: @Big Bill

    Bare knuckle politics. It reminds me of the early 19th Century when rolling fistfights broke out on the floor of Congress during debates.

  21. @rvg
    So how did the higher and capitalist IQ South lose to the lower and communist IQ north? And how did slightly higher IQ french troops lose in Dien Bien Phu? And how did high IQ southern Chinese lose to lower IQ northern Chinese and Mongols?

    Replies: @Lot, @bomag, @Bryan Bell

    So how did the higher and capitalist IQ South lose to the lower and communist IQ north?

    Vietnamese in the North are more closely related to the high IQ south Chinese. In the South they likely have more of a mixture of the native Champa population, who are closer to Cambodians.

    Of course this is complicated by selective migration of high IQ villagers to the cities under the French and patterns of modern era Chinese migration to Vietnam.

  22. Related to this, scholarly studies that look at life expectancy and IQ have found that people with low IQs are far more likely to die in accidents.

    Now in an environment like the Vietnam War where you deal with guns and bombs everyday, that effect is magnified. Just think of the ways to accidentally die or kill: getting lost in the jungle, misunderstanding orders, accidentally shooting at fellow Americans, not taking proper precautions to prevent falling victim to friendly fire, mishandling explosives.

  23. @Realist
    @Anon

    "PS. What accounts for the dumb war planning? Surely, Bush and co. have higher than average IQ."

    Not a chance.

    Replies: @Jim

    The assertion that Bush had an IQ less than average is utter nonsense. There is no way an individual with an IQ of less than 100 could become a member of the US elite. All the defendents at Nuremberg were tested for IQ by US psychologists. Their average IQ was 128. The range was from 106 (Streicher) to 143 (Schacht). Second lowest was 113 (Kaltenbrunner).
    Although it would be nice to have more data on elite IQ the Nuremberg IQ tests probably give a fairly good idea of the IQ of the elites of Western countries. In the case of the Nuremberg defendents their average IQ exceeded that of the German population by between one and half to two standard deviations.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Jim

    "Realist" just can't wrap his mind around how the smart can be infinitely stupider than the stupid. In other words, he's no realist.

    When he was still young and coherent, Wm F Buckley Jr said he'd rather be governed by the first 200 people in the Boston phone directory than by the faculty of Harvard. (Yes, he was a Yalie.)

    On the other hand, the first 200 might be all Scandinavian and Jewish, so they'd be too smart to trust, too.

    Replies: @BurplesonAFB, @Realist

    , @Realist
    @Jim

    "The assertion that Bush had an IQ less than average is utter nonsense. There is no way an individual with an IQ of less than 100 could become a member of the US elite"

    Bush was not a member of the power elite, he was controlled and manipulated by them. None of the decisions made were made by him. He did as he was told.

    What a silly argument for your proposition.... the IQ of Nazis

    Replies: @Neon

    , @rod1963
    @Jim

    Nonsense. Georgie is a moron and a low IQ never stopped anyone was born into the elite like George was from doing anything. This is what advisers are for, they do the heavy lifting while the inbred elite sits back and rakes in the cash.

    Even stupid people are admitted into the Ivies provided they are legacies, sons or daughters of powerful people or have the right ethnicity. Furthermore they won't be failed, they'll be given what is called a "gentleman's C", essentially the Ivy variant of social promotion.

    Replies: @Realist

  24. @Anon
    That must be why Iraq War turned out so great. Higher IQ soldiers.

    PS. What accounts for the dumb war planning? Surely, Bush and co. have higher than average IQ.

    Replies: @Realist, @Jack D, @Ed, @JohnnyWalker123

    The Iraq War turned out great in this sense: combat deaths were 10% of losses in Vietnam and 1% of losses in WWII. In some years, losses were less than in the peacetime years of the Cold War. A lot of this can be explained by the fact that we had a smaller, smarter army in Iraq.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Jack D

    Better medical technology helped.

    I would say the problem of Vietnam was that all the social ruckus at home spilled over into the battlefield.

    They hadn't figured out how to control the situation at home. All the youth craziness, drugs, race tensions.

    Was low IQ to blame for the mess at Woodstock and Altamont? Or the Chicago Democratic Convention in 68? It was just the sign of the times.

    America lost its old inhibitions that had been taken for granted. So, race and youth rebellion was everywhere. It took some time for boomers to grow older and come up with ways to control the younger generations thru PC and all sorts of methods.

    Look at rock concerts today. It's tightly controlled and contained anarchy.

    , @dearieme
    @Jack D

    "A lot of this can be explained by the fact that we had a smaller, smarter army in Iraq." Part of this can also be explained by the US paying off various brigands not to attack her forces as they retreated out of the country.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @Drakejax
    @Jack D

    The biggest reason for our lesser casualty count was smaller exposure (fewer troops in contact) against far less competent opponents. When sending lots of troops to actually win a war against uber-competant Germans, one is likely to rack up huge casualty counts. Rotating the regular army to Iraq to patrol against buffoons whose only effective tactic is roadside bombs is not nearly as dangerous. As for the smarter army in Iraq, IQ scores for the military have dropped since the 1990s; the military which fought Panama and Desert Storm was probably our "smartest" military.

    , @MarkinLA
    @Jack D

    In WWII you had to get up close and personal in a fight. In Iraq, you have massive firepower that destroyed the enemy at a distance? What were the Iraqi casualties. In Iraq you could kill an enemy tank at 2 kilometers, in WWII it was about 300 meters

    Replies: @Boomstick

    , @rod1963
    @Jack D

    Nope, we just rolled over a 4th world state that had no real military of note. Not to mention we had total air dominance will made everything so very easy. Any WWII military could have done the same to the Iraqis.

    However once the Iraqis figured out the grunts, they bled us good, in the end we never controlled anything more than the ground our troops stood on at the moment.

    And that smaller army was exhausted by that little war and occupation. We lacked sufficient numbers of soldiers to do proper troop rotations, etc.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @Andrew Ryan
    @Jack D

    Keep in mind that medical technology and trauma care have advanced dramatically as well. There are many, many battlefield wounds that would have been lethal in WWII or Vietnam that were not so in Iraq. Relatedly, when comparing murder rates over time keep in mind our rates today are artificially depressed by medical advancement. This level of inner city violence 50 years ago would increase the murder rate several fold.

  25. Speaking of low-IQ this couldn’t be more OT, but I think you’ll find it amusing:

    http://phys.org/news/2015-11-degrees-flies-planes-author-nasa.html

    Moshe Kai Cavalin has two college degrees, but he’s too young to vote. He flies airplanes, but he’s too young to drive a car alone.

    Life is filled with contrasts for Cavalin, a 17-year-old from San Gabriel, California, who has dashed by major milestones as his age seems to lag behind. He graduated from community college at age 11. Four years later, he had a bachelor’s in math from the University of California, Los Angeles.

    This year, he started online classes to get a master’s in cybersecurity through the Boston area’s Brandeis University. He decided to postpone that pursuit for a couple of terms, though, while he helps NASA develop surveillance technology for airplanes and drones.

    Still, Cavalin insists that he’s more ordinary than people think. He credits his parents for years of focused instruction balanced by the freedom to pick his after-school activities. His eclectic interests stem from his cultural heritage, he said, with a mother from Taiwan and a father from Brazil.

    Yeah, right.

  26. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @Anon

    The Iraq War turned out great in this sense: combat deaths were 10% of losses in Vietnam and 1% of losses in WWII. In some years, losses were less than in the peacetime years of the Cold War. A lot of this can be explained by the fact that we had a smaller, smarter army in Iraq.

    Replies: @Anon, @dearieme, @Drakejax, @MarkinLA, @rod1963, @Andrew Ryan

    Better medical technology helped.

    I would say the problem of Vietnam was that all the social ruckus at home spilled over into the battlefield.

    They hadn’t figured out how to control the situation at home. All the youth craziness, drugs, race tensions.

    Was low IQ to blame for the mess at Woodstock and Altamont? Or the Chicago Democratic Convention in 68? It was just the sign of the times.

    America lost its old inhibitions that had been taken for granted. So, race and youth rebellion was everywhere. It took some time for boomers to grow older and come up with ways to control the younger generations thru PC and all sorts of methods.

    Look at rock concerts today. It’s tightly controlled and contained anarchy.

  27. Yes, that is why Muhammad Ali was drafted, after previously being passed over. His IQ had been considered too low, but it fell within the new guidelines.

    Ali’s manager said he had known boxers who were intellectually above average but they were always less of a fighter for it.

    That said, the elite unites such as airborne (with higher IQ presumably) often suffered the high casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hamburger_Hill

  28. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It was probably impossible not to revise standards downward. The most famous athlete in America at the time was heavyweight boxing champion Muhammad Ali who was initially passed over for the draft due to having a low IQ of 78. Here’s a top athlete in the public eye every day bantering and going back and forth with the press and yet he’s unfit for service while Joe Plumber’s son gets sucked in. There was just too much of a discrepancy in that for it to continue. Great intellects like Dick Cheney got deferments all the while but were out of the public eye.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @anonymous

    Ali was witty but illiterate. The documentary about his fight with Foreman shows him saying his biggest regret was never learning to read.

    Replies: @tbraton, @Anonymous, @Triumph104

  29. In about 1976, the Pentagon fouled up how to grade the AFQT enlistment exam, letting in lots of new recruits who didn’t score high enough.

    Why do I think it really wasn’t a “foul up?” More like an intentional disregard of the rules? Because nobody ever wants to learn anything if the moral of the story is a racial taboo, we keep repeating the same failed programs and plans over and over again. We just won’t ditch the mentality that Sgt. Jack Webb is going to be able to turn N’Desahwntavious into Bradley with enough boot camp discipline.

  30. @anonymous
    It was probably impossible not to revise standards downward. The most famous athlete in America at the time was heavyweight boxing champion Muhammad Ali who was initially passed over for the draft due to having a low IQ of 78. Here's a top athlete in the public eye every day bantering and going back and forth with the press and yet he's unfit for service while Joe Plumber's son gets sucked in. There was just too much of a discrepancy in that for it to continue. Great intellects like Dick Cheney got deferments all the while but were out of the public eye.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Ali was witty but illiterate. The documentary about his fight with Foreman shows him saying his biggest regret was never learning to read.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    @Steve Sailer

    I believe Ali responded to the news of his low IQ by saying "I always said I was the greatest, not the smartest." In light of the fact that he couldn't read, he could be considered the Charlemagne of the boxing ring.

    , @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    In one of his documentaries, they said that his Nation of Islam handlers fed him a lot of his more sophisticated sounding lines.

    A lot of his lines weren't really witty in that they didn't make sense and involved using words incorrectly.

    , @Triumph104
    @Steve Sailer

    Islam like most large religions has a low intellectual barrier to entry.In this interview from around 2003 Ali's wife Lonnie did most of the talking or should I say lying.


    Young Muslim: I heard that before you became Muslim, you never used to read and thought you couldn't read very well?

    Lonnie Ali: Muhammad may have been dyslexic as a boy. He never focused on the mechanics of reading, but now he can spend hours a day reading. When he reads the Quran, he'll copy out passages that really touch him. He reads Islamic books, research books, particularly those that point out contradictions in the Bible. He checks them out thoroughly, to find out if there's any bias. http://www.soundvision.com/article/an-interview-with-muhammad-ali
     
    Ali has one biological son, Ali Jr. Unlike his sisters, Jr is dysfunctional, probably special needs. He is 42 or 43 and has a wife and two young children, lives on food stamps and handouts.

    I’m like a 12-year-old in a 41-year-old’s body now. I was always sheltered as a child, limited to what I could do, so I don’t know how to get out there and do it now,” he adds. http://nypost.com/2014/01/26/muhammad-alis-son-shut-off-dad-living-in-poverty-in-chicago/
     
  31. @anony-mouse
    from Amazon?

    How about:

    "Got in a little home town jam..."

    Replies: @bomag

    Also, Steve Earl shoehorns in a sweet little line in Copperhead Road,

    “They draft the White trash first ’round here anyway.”

  32. having those low IQ types with heavy guns in their hands in Vietnam was not only a problem for their comrades, but much likely also a problem of Vietnamese civilians.

  33. “Ali was witty but illiterate. The documentary about his fight with Foreman shows him saying his biggest regret was never learning to read.”

    Well, I seem to recall reading that Charlemagne (or “Charles the Great”) could neither read nor write, and he achieved great things. I also remember that the Washington Redskins under Joe Gibbs had a great defensive end, Dexter Manley, who, it was later revealed, had graduated from Oklahoma State University even though he was illiterate. Think what a great intellectual accomplishment that was. Graduating from a fine American university and not being able to read. I know how hard some of my college courses were even though I could read. I can’t imagine passing some of them being unable to read. My hat’s off to Dexter Manley, the Charlemagne of the Washington Redskins.

    • Replies: @FPD72
    @tbraton

    Dexter did not graduate from OSU; he ran out of athletic eligibility. That doesn't remove all of the stain from OSU because he was able to maintain academic eligibility for four seasons.

    How do you pass college classes if you can't read? Something fishy was going on in Stillwater, but I doubt that OSU's actions were particular to that school.

    Replies: @MarkinLA, @tbraton

  34. @rvg
    So how did the higher and capitalist IQ South lose to the lower and communist IQ north? And how did slightly higher IQ french troops lose in Dien Bien Phu? And how did high IQ southern Chinese lose to lower IQ northern Chinese and Mongols?

    Replies: @Lot, @bomag, @Bryan Bell

    And how did slightly higher IQ french troops lose in Dien Bien Phu?

    Well, the race is not always to the swift…

    Giap’s men came close to bolting from the crude conditions. They had the advantage of terrain, numbers, local support, and artillery (the game changer).

    The French had really bad tactics, support, and intelligence. Their plan was to show that if they could prevail at Dien Bien Phu, they could prevail anywhere.

  35. @Jim
    @Realist

    The assertion that Bush had an IQ less than average is utter nonsense. There is no way an individual with an IQ of less than 100 could become a member of the US elite. All the defendents at Nuremberg were tested for IQ by US psychologists. Their average IQ was 128. The range was from 106 (Streicher) to 143 (Schacht). Second lowest was 113 (Kaltenbrunner).
    Although it would be nice to have more data on elite IQ the Nuremberg IQ tests probably give a fairly good idea of the IQ of the elites of Western countries. In the case of the Nuremberg defendents their average IQ exceeded that of the German population by between one and half to two standard deviations.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Realist, @rod1963

    “Realist” just can’t wrap his mind around how the smart can be infinitely stupider than the stupid. In other words, he’s no realist.

    When he was still young and coherent, Wm F Buckley Jr said he’d rather be governed by the first 200 people in the Boston phone directory than by the faculty of Harvard. (Yes, he was a Yalie.)

    On the other hand, the first 200 might be all Scandinavian and Jewish, so they’d be too smart to trust, too.

    • Agree: Bill
    • Replies: @BurplesonAFB
    @Reg Cæsar

    Buckley didn't mistrust the Harvard faculty because they were smart, he mistrusted them because many (a majority?) were out and out marxists/socialists/communists.

    Of course that's true of a lot of scandinavians and jews.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @Realist
    @Reg Cæsar

    "“Realist” just can’t wrap his mind around how the smart can be infinitely stupider than the stupid. In other words, he’s no realist."

    That statement is so nonsensical as to be surreal.

    Replies: @Anonym

  36. I joined the U.S. Army in 1965 so I must be pretty dumb. An old NCO once told me “Son you only need to know twelve words to be a soldier. And five of them are fuck”.

  37. @Peter Akuleyev
    Anedotally, the stories I have heard from my friends who were officers in the Vietnam war certainly suggest that the troops they had were among the least prepared, least motivated, least trainable and most drug addicted that any US Army has gone to war with. One obvious factor is that in Vietnam inner city blacks made up a significant level of the troops. In WWII blacks generally weren't allowed in combat units.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    From one of the two reviews on http://www.vvaw.org/veteran :

    A low-IQ soldier played a deadly joke for two days pulling the pin of a hand grenade and then rolling it toward his mates. Nothing happened since he had disabled it pulling out the detonator cylinder. His mates beat him each time for scaring them finally yelling at him: “Never again, Bozo!” The third day they muttered and kept eating ignoring him as they wouldn’t fall for the same lame gag. When he did the same trick, this time he had forgotten to disable it. The grenade exploded killing two soldiers and wounding several others. Rather than send him to the States to try him for manslaughter, they made him perform risks like walking point exposing him to booby-traps, detonating a landmine, or sniper bait.

  38. I seem to recall that the Jones Act was passed in 1917 with the specific purpose of making Puerto Ricans American citizens and thus eligible for the draft so they would also have the privilege of fighting in the war to end all wars. “On March 2, 1917, under the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, the Jones Act was approved. This new organic law which granted numerous rights for residents of the island also included the granting of American citizenship to persons born in Puerto Rico.” See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones%E2%80%93Shafroth_Act (“In this manner, the Jones–Shafroth Act—through a combination of citizenship and extension of U.S. laws to Puerto Rico, including the aforementioned National Defense Act—exposed Puerto Ricans to mandatory conscription into the U.S. military, precisely at the moment that the United States entered World War I. More than 20,000 Puerto Ricans ended up serving in the US armed forces during World War I.”)

  39. I joined the Army in 1976 after my old man told me to find a job or get the hell out of his house.The night before I took the test I was out drinking beer with my buddies. During the test I was still hung over. When we got a break I went to the restroom and threw up. Some of the guys who sat for the test simply gave up and walked out. I couldn’t understand what their problem was. Just fill in the little ovals randomly. Later the recruiter told me my score and said I qualified for any job in the U.S. Army. I stupidly said I wanted to be “airborne” like Jimi Hendrix. My plan was to got to jump school and later fake a back injury so I would get discharged but have that airborne mystique. Because I was going to be a jazz-rock superstar. After Basic Training they held a number of my platoon back to teach them remedial reading and writing because they were functionally illiterate. I ended up in an all-black unit on Ft. Bragg where they asked how many years of college I had. I told them I dropped out of school when I was 15.

    Back to my dad. Had we got along better I would have made better choices. He blew a fuse when I told him I joined the Army. Pops had been an Air Force career officer and after retirement attained a PhD in Economics, in addition to being a licensed Professional Engineer and CFA. He became head of the logistics department at a certain well-known military graduate school where he held sway over the careers of numerous Air Force officers. In effect he inherited the branch set up by McNamara during WWII to apply statistics to managing all the planes and material used by the Army Air Corps.

    Dad was a modest man. Only recently did I find photos of him on the web with his B-24 crew and got in touch with the son of his pilot, who recounted stories of my dad in the nose of the bomber counting German 88mm flashes on the ground so the pilot could evade the blasts. Then on one memorable flight had two engines shot out and barely made it back to England, crashing within a kilometer of the coast. He never said two words about his war experiences.

    After the war he served in the nascent CIA in Germany where he posed as a Spaniard. An even stranger story is about his dealings in Spain in the 1950s with one “Juan Sanchez”, who turned out to be Leon DeGrelle, the former Belgian Nazi party boss and leader of the Walloon SS division. When he informed his superiors of this he was told to treat him as if he was Juan Sanchez.

    Some years ago I read a book about McNamara and the group of statisticians he worked with in WWII that was later hired en mass by Henry Ford. McNamara was responsible for the venerable Ford Falcon. The story about Jack Reith and the failed “1957 Turnpike Cruiser” was also fascinating. After reading the book I realized my old man’s indirect connection with McNamara.

    Here’s a review of The Whiz Kids :

    http://www.amnesta.net/other/whizKids

  40. @Auntie Analogue
    @greysquirrell


    "How do the WW2 soldiers’ IQ compare to Vietnam era soldiers and how do the standards compare?"

     

    They compare identically.

    Early in both wars the military took in the best quality human material; later in the wars the military lowered the standards and inducted a lot of far from the best quality human material.

    In the two wars the reasons for this shift differ: in WWII the nation(s) simply ran out of the best quality human material - the shortage was actual; while in the Vietnam War the best quality human material was exempted from induction - the shortage was artificial. In both instances the military was compelled to induct lower quality personnel.

    The actual WWII & Vietnam War standards for IQ (or AFQT) don't matter, as in both instances the bar was set high early and later lowered, and in both instances the military inducted from the then-available pool of manpower. The IQ ranges of those two wars' manpower pools may not have been exactly the same (Flynn effect) but their graphs are parallel as are the graphs of the intelligence of the two wars' inductees.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @sturmrugergp100

    Eddie Slovik is the poster child for lower standards. His draft board in Detroit rejected him in 1943. In 1944, under pressure, they reluctantly accepted him. By then, we were overextended.

    Slovik, a petty criminal, was unfit for service, more for reasons of character than of intelligence. He knew it better than did the people at the top.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Reg Cæsar

    The air force took the best men. Air crew were the types who became NCOs in the army.

    In WW2 thousands of trainee pilots were transferred to the army infantry, ha ha.

    Replies: @The Man From K Street

    , @The Man from K Street
    @Reg Cæsar


    Eddie Slovik is the poster child for lower standards. His draft board in Detroit rejected him in 1943. In 1944, under pressure, they reluctantly accepted him. By then, we were overextended.
     
    Slovik was rejected for service in '43 not just because he was a moron, but for the same reason that plenty of men with IQs over 120 were:
    He was married.
    You could volunteer if you were a married man, but for almost the entire length of the modern draft in America--1917-1918, 1940-1946 and 1948-1973, marriage was a factor in draft status, and being married with dependents was an absolute cause for exemption. This is what people who always love to call Cheney a chickenhawk forget--the only time he was realistically draft eligible was in 1964--as if a telephone linesman in Wyoming newly married to his high school sweetheart is some kind of "Fortunate Son" and who was supposed to know Vietnam was going to become as big a war as it did (In '64 it was backpage news).

    It was only in an 18-month stretch of time from the middle of '43 to the end of '44 that the bottom of the manpower pool had been reached, and married-with-kids winners like Louis Till got their draft notices. And there were I think only two draft years after 1965 when married-with-dependents were even eligible, let alone moved to the head of the line.

    Replies: @Honesthughgrant

    , @Big Bill
    @Reg Cæsar

    Emmett Till's father, too.

    I heard that the Americal (Calley, My Lai)unit was assembled from these mental defects, too.

    Replies: @Mr. Blank

  41. Low performance at the tactical level in Vietnam was not just the low quality of recruits; all the World War II vets hit their 20 at the beginning of the war and punched out leaving the army bereft of good sergeants (especially since the WWII vets had jammed the natural promotion pipeline for so long).

    The operational and strategic problems with the war were due to a failure of political leadership that senior military leaders refused to confront. There were war plans on the shelf for how to win the war but they were never implemented. Things like cut the Ho Chi Minh highway with ground troops instead of endlessly stepping on mines while hunting guerrillas in the south.

    • Replies: @NotAnonymousYet
    @Drakejax


    There were war plans on the shelf for how to win the war but they were never implemented. Things like cut the Ho Chi Minh highway with ground troops instead of endlessly stepping on mines while hunting guerrillas in the south.
     
    That would have meant ground invasion of Laos/Cambodia. There was no domestic political support for this.
  42. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    So how did the higher and capitalist IQ South lose to the lower and communist IQ north?

    At a very high-level there’s probably an HBD case to be made that ultimately much of the Vietnam war and how it ended was was about simple racism. Vietnamese wanted Vietnam for Vietnamese. Their land, their race. The particular politics and ideology were secondary for many, perhaps most.

    Also, high IQ can easily loose fighting low IQ (ask the Jews and Chinese), because all other things might not be equal. If you are significantly outnumbered, you don’t have the ships or horses, or you are out of ammo (ask the South Vietnamese) it’s easy to lose no matter what your cognitive capacity.

  43. @Reg Cæsar
    @Jim

    "Realist" just can't wrap his mind around how the smart can be infinitely stupider than the stupid. In other words, he's no realist.

    When he was still young and coherent, Wm F Buckley Jr said he'd rather be governed by the first 200 people in the Boston phone directory than by the faculty of Harvard. (Yes, he was a Yalie.)

    On the other hand, the first 200 might be all Scandinavian and Jewish, so they'd be too smart to trust, too.

    Replies: @BurplesonAFB, @Realist

    Buckley didn’t mistrust the Harvard faculty because they were smart, he mistrusted them because many (a majority?) were out and out marxists/socialists/communists.

    Of course that’s true of a lot of scandinavians and jews.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @BurplesonAFB



    Buckley didn’t mistrust the Harvard faculty because they were smart, he mistrusted them because many (a majority?) were out and out marxists/socialists/communists.

     

    Such "out and outs" were primarily drawn from the intellectual class. How many Marxists would there have been on the first two pages of the white pages, even with the Aaronsons and Aalborgs?
  44. WGG [AKA "World\'s Greatest Grandson"] says:

    As a young Lieutenant stateside in the 1970’s, my father told me about the few times that he thought he would be murdered by his own veteran troops. They weren’t just dumb, they were drugged up and pissed off.

  45. @Reg Cæsar
    @Auntie Analogue

    Eddie Slovik is the poster child for lower standards. His draft board in Detroit rejected him in 1943. In 1944, under pressure, they reluctantly accepted him. By then, we were overextended.

    Slovik, a petty criminal, was unfit for service, more for reasons of character than of intelligence. He knew it better than did the people at the top.

    Replies: @Sean, @The Man from K Street, @Big Bill

    The air force took the best men. Air crew were the types who became NCOs in the army.

    In WW2 thousands of trainee pilots were transferred to the army infantry, ha ha.

    • Replies: @The Man From K Street
    @Sean

    The air force took the best men. Air crew were the types who became NCOs in the army.

    That was true of both sides in WW2, and mostly true today. The Germans, not surprisingly, administered a lot of aptitude tests, and found that the average Luftwaffe enlistee was way more intelligent, and also better motivated, than his Heer (Army) counterpart. In any sane system, once the Germans had most of the air force shot out of the sky (around 1943), they would have transferred most of the now-excess Luftwaffe enlisted men to the Army, where they would have made first-rate infantrymen if integrated into existing Army formations.

    But that wasn't good enough for Hermann Goering. He had to insist that they stay in air force uniform, and form Luftwaffe "field divisions" to fight as ground forces under air force command. Plus, they would stay good National Socialists under Nazi commissars, and not come under the old monarchist, reactionary influence of the Army. Needless to say, it all ended in tears: The "field divisions" crumpled under fire like wet newspaper.

  46. @Jack D
    @Anon

    The Iraq War turned out great in this sense: combat deaths were 10% of losses in Vietnam and 1% of losses in WWII. In some years, losses were less than in the peacetime years of the Cold War. A lot of this can be explained by the fact that we had a smaller, smarter army in Iraq.

    Replies: @Anon, @dearieme, @Drakejax, @MarkinLA, @rod1963, @Andrew Ryan

    “A lot of this can be explained by the fact that we had a smaller, smarter army in Iraq.” Part of this can also be explained by the US paying off various brigands not to attack her forces as they retreated out of the country.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @dearieme


    Part of this can also be explained by the US paying off various brigands not to attack her forces as they retreated out of the country.
     
    America>her
    US>their
  47. @Reg Cæsar
    @Auntie Analogue

    Eddie Slovik is the poster child for lower standards. His draft board in Detroit rejected him in 1943. In 1944, under pressure, they reluctantly accepted him. By then, we were overextended.

    Slovik, a petty criminal, was unfit for service, more for reasons of character than of intelligence. He knew it better than did the people at the top.

    Replies: @Sean, @The Man from K Street, @Big Bill

    Eddie Slovik is the poster child for lower standards. His draft board in Detroit rejected him in 1943. In 1944, under pressure, they reluctantly accepted him. By then, we were overextended.

    Slovik was rejected for service in ’43 not just because he was a moron, but for the same reason that plenty of men with IQs over 120 were:
    He was married.
    You could volunteer if you were a married man, but for almost the entire length of the modern draft in America–1917-1918, 1940-1946 and 1948-1973, marriage was a factor in draft status, and being married with dependents was an absolute cause for exemption. This is what people who always love to call Cheney a chickenhawk forget–the only time he was realistically draft eligible was in 1964–as if a telephone linesman in Wyoming newly married to his high school sweetheart is some kind of “Fortunate Son” and who was supposed to know Vietnam was going to become as big a war as it did (In ’64 it was backpage news).

    It was only in an 18-month stretch of time from the middle of ’43 to the end of ’44 that the bottom of the manpower pool had been reached, and married-with-kids winners like Louis Till got their draft notices. And there were I think only two draft years after 1965 when married-with-dependents were even eligible, let alone moved to the head of the line.

    • Replies: @Honesthughgrant
    @The Man from K Street


    It was only in an 18-month stretch of time from the middle of ’43 to the end of ’44 that the bottom of the manpower pool had been reached, and married-with-kids winners like Louis Till got their draft notices. And there were I think only two draft years after 1965 when married-with-dependents were even eligible, let alone moved to the head of the line.
     
    Just a correction. Yes, I know its being picky. Pre-Pearl Harbor fathers had a draft exemption until October 1943 but almost none were drafted into well into 1944. Draft boards were encouraged to take the youngest fathers first. End result: almost 90% of fathers over the age of 30 never got drafted.
  48. @Auntie Analogue
    Low-IQ infantrymen as cannon fodder are not new today and weren't new in the Vietnam war either.

    In his superb classic book The Sharp End John Ellis presents a wealth of statistics showing that low-IQ enlistees and conscripts were relegated to the infantry whose units suffered something like 75% of all battle casualties.

    Ellis also shows this for British forces as well. The British, much harder pressed for manpower than was the United States, consigned their lowest-IQ personnel to the Pioneer Corps whose members were menial laborers to dig ditches, roll airfields level, fill sandbags, erect fencing, clean latrines, &c. By late 1943 even the United States had run out of intellectually qualified conscripts and had begun to draft men not up to the lowest standards that had applied earlier in the war.

    Here's WWII Marine Corps infantry veteran Robert Leckie in his book Helmet For My Pillow:

    "Intelligence, intelligence, intelligence. Keep it up, America, keep telling your youth that mud and danger are fit only for intellectual pigs. Keep on saying that only the stupid are fit to sacrifice, that America must be defended by the low-brow and enjoyed by the high-brow. Keep vaunting head over heart, and soon the head will arrive at the complete folly of any kind of fight and meekly surrender the treasure to the first bandit with enough heart to demand it."
     

    Replies: @Romanian, @Sean

    Most of the US army infantry (who did the lion’s share of the dying) in WW2 were white Southerners.

  49. @Jack D
    @Anon

    The Iraq War turned out great in this sense: combat deaths were 10% of losses in Vietnam and 1% of losses in WWII. In some years, losses were less than in the peacetime years of the Cold War. A lot of this can be explained by the fact that we had a smaller, smarter army in Iraq.

    Replies: @Anon, @dearieme, @Drakejax, @MarkinLA, @rod1963, @Andrew Ryan

    The biggest reason for our lesser casualty count was smaller exposure (fewer troops in contact) against far less competent opponents. When sending lots of troops to actually win a war against uber-competant Germans, one is likely to rack up huge casualty counts. Rotating the regular army to Iraq to patrol against buffoons whose only effective tactic is roadside bombs is not nearly as dangerous. As for the smarter army in Iraq, IQ scores for the military have dropped since the 1990s; the military which fought Panama and Desert Storm was probably our “smartest” military.

  50. @Jim
    @Realist

    The assertion that Bush had an IQ less than average is utter nonsense. There is no way an individual with an IQ of less than 100 could become a member of the US elite. All the defendents at Nuremberg were tested for IQ by US psychologists. Their average IQ was 128. The range was from 106 (Streicher) to 143 (Schacht). Second lowest was 113 (Kaltenbrunner).
    Although it would be nice to have more data on elite IQ the Nuremberg IQ tests probably give a fairly good idea of the IQ of the elites of Western countries. In the case of the Nuremberg defendents their average IQ exceeded that of the German population by between one and half to two standard deviations.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Realist, @rod1963

    “The assertion that Bush had an IQ less than average is utter nonsense. There is no way an individual with an IQ of less than 100 could become a member of the US elite”

    Bush was not a member of the power elite, he was controlled and manipulated by them. None of the decisions made were made by him. He did as he was told.

    What a silly argument for your proposition…. the IQ of Nazis

    • Replies: @Neon
    @Realist

    Silly? So IQ too is reduced, like every other human trait apparently, to utter irrelevance when looking at Nazis? Is this true for Communists as well? And if not, then why not?
    In any case I am sure that Jim chose them, not because they were Nazis, but because their IQs are readily available.
    I am sure that the average IQs of the English and American war leaders were roughly comparable to the Germans, and I suspect that the Japanese had the highest average of all.

    Replies: @Realist

  51. @Steve Sailer
    @anonymous

    Ali was witty but illiterate. The documentary about his fight with Foreman shows him saying his biggest regret was never learning to read.

    Replies: @tbraton, @Anonymous, @Triumph104

    I believe Ali responded to the news of his low IQ by saying “I always said I was the greatest, not the smartest.” In light of the fact that he couldn’t read, he could be considered the Charlemagne of the boxing ring.

  52. Sorry for the dump about my old man but you triggered me with the McNamara observation.

    I have published a book and started a blog about how to use PUA techniques in the job search.

    You can download a free 60-page preview here (no registration required) :

    https://employmentgame.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/employment-game-preview-download/

    • Replies: @Carlton Fisk
    @elmer

    I enjoyed the post about your father.

  53. @Jack D
    @Anon

    The Iraq War turned out great in this sense: combat deaths were 10% of losses in Vietnam and 1% of losses in WWII. In some years, losses were less than in the peacetime years of the Cold War. A lot of this can be explained by the fact that we had a smaller, smarter army in Iraq.

    Replies: @Anon, @dearieme, @Drakejax, @MarkinLA, @rod1963, @Andrew Ryan

    In WWII you had to get up close and personal in a fight. In Iraq, you have massive firepower that destroyed the enemy at a distance? What were the Iraqi casualties. In Iraq you could kill an enemy tank at 2 kilometers, in WWII it was about 300 meters

    • Replies: @Boomstick
    @MarkinLA

    After the initial battles against the organized Iraqi Army most of the fight was at the small unit level, often door-to-door raids and convoy operations.

    Replies: @MarkinLA

  54. In about 1976, the Pentagon fouled up how to grade the AFQT enlistment exam, letting in lots of new recruits who didn’t score high enough.

    You also had what was essentially a voluntary army with conscript pay. How is anybody with some sense going to enlist unless it was for the training possibilities.

  55. Stupid or smart soldiers in the US Army mean little when your enemy is fighting at home and believes this:

    You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it.

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/ho_chi_minh.html#xlttPbvwoG1swY6s.99

  56. @PistolPete
    @JohnnyWalker123

    I laughed HARD! Think he'll be like that with Clinton?

    If so, I can't wait!!

    P.s.
    I feel like a school girl in love when it comes to Trump. He's got Buchanan ideas but in an Alpha personality that drives the "great and the good" INSANE. Doesn't come much better. I can't wait until he hires Steve,either..

    Good times are a comin...

    Replies: @Anonymous

    I feel like a school girl in love when it comes to Trump. He’s got Buchanan ideas but in an Alpha personality that drives the “great and the good” INSANE. Doesn’t come much better.

    There’s a word for that: jock-sniffer.

  57. @Reg Cæsar
    @Jim

    "Realist" just can't wrap his mind around how the smart can be infinitely stupider than the stupid. In other words, he's no realist.

    When he was still young and coherent, Wm F Buckley Jr said he'd rather be governed by the first 200 people in the Boston phone directory than by the faculty of Harvard. (Yes, he was a Yalie.)

    On the other hand, the first 200 might be all Scandinavian and Jewish, so they'd be too smart to trust, too.

    Replies: @BurplesonAFB, @Realist

    ““Realist” just can’t wrap his mind around how the smart can be infinitely stupider than the stupid. In other words, he’s no realist.”

    That statement is so nonsensical as to be surreal.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @Realist

    High IQ people can be suicidally dumb at times, especially if they are prone to group think and the group think is dumb (as PC is).

  58. The Germans drafted everyone who could fight and the same is true with the Soviets and at the war’s end – Japan

    Someone mentioned the British putting their low IQ’s in the “Pioneer Corps” – the US Army did the same – Low IQ’s went into the Quartermaster Corps.

    During WW2 the US army constantly complained that the Navy and Air Force were getting the “cream of the crop” and they eventually got FDR to stop volunteering and during certain months funnel all 18 years into the Army. The US army also put a lot of high IQ “Army students” in the Infantry during 1944. Bob Dole was one, and he wasn’t too happy about it.

  59. @Steve Sailer
    @anonymous

    Ali was witty but illiterate. The documentary about his fight with Foreman shows him saying his biggest regret was never learning to read.

    Replies: @tbraton, @Anonymous, @Triumph104

    In one of his documentaries, they said that his Nation of Islam handlers fed him a lot of his more sophisticated sounding lines.

    A lot of his lines weren’t really witty in that they didn’t make sense and involved using words incorrectly.

  60. @Slumlord
    Low IQ troops may not have helped in the Vietnam War but the rot was with the high IQ leaders. Read McMasters' Dereliction of Duty.

    BTW, the flawed U.S. Grand Strategy in Vietnam was essentially based on Maxwell Taylor's highly influential book, amongst the Democrats, The Uncertain Trumpet. If I remember correctly, Taylor was near top of his class and proficient in several languages. It's pretty certain that he had a high IQ.

    McNamara and his "Whizz Kids" were also pretty bright, but not when it came to fighting a war.

    Seriously, Steve, I think you've got to get around to reading Keith Stanovich. He is a legitimate cognitive researcher whose specialty is understanding why high IQ sometimes leads to stupid. The Scientific American ran an article by him which you might want to peruse.

    "Rational and Irrational Thought: The Thinking that IQ Tests Miss." Google it up.

    Replies: @the cruncher, @Stan d Mute

    Rational and Irrational Thought: The Thinking that IQ Tests Miss.” Google it up.

    I’m much more concerned about the .25 correlation on his “mindware” vs IQ than on disjunctive vs IQ. If true, this explains how “intelligent” leftists happen. And how “smart” average guys exist. Why isn’t this tested with IQ? And how does this correlate with g?

  61. @Reg Cæsar
    @Auntie Analogue

    Eddie Slovik is the poster child for lower standards. His draft board in Detroit rejected him in 1943. In 1944, under pressure, they reluctantly accepted him. By then, we were overextended.

    Slovik, a petty criminal, was unfit for service, more for reasons of character than of intelligence. He knew it better than did the people at the top.

    Replies: @Sean, @The Man from K Street, @Big Bill

    Emmett Till’s father, too.

    I heard that the Americal (Calley, My Lai)unit was assembled from these mental defects, too.

    • Replies: @Mr. Blank
    @Big Bill

    Yeah, I seem to remember reading this too. Apparently Calley was just a total screwup who should have never been in a leadership position — but by that point in the war, they were scraping the bottom of the barrel for leadership, and he was one of the ones they dredged up. I think the Abu Ghraib outrages were also committed by a bunch of dim bulb troops, too.

    It would be interesting to survey the IQ scores of convicted war criminals to see how they stack up against the average for all soldiers...

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  62. @Anon
    That must be why Iraq War turned out so great. Higher IQ soldiers.

    PS. What accounts for the dumb war planning? Surely, Bush and co. have higher than average IQ.

    Replies: @Realist, @Jack D, @Ed, @JohnnyWalker123

    The problem with Iraq wasn’t the military, Saddam’s forces were routed within a month. The issue is and has always been governing what happened next.

    Thats a political failure not a military failure.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  63. @Jim
    @Realist

    The assertion that Bush had an IQ less than average is utter nonsense. There is no way an individual with an IQ of less than 100 could become a member of the US elite. All the defendents at Nuremberg were tested for IQ by US psychologists. Their average IQ was 128. The range was from 106 (Streicher) to 143 (Schacht). Second lowest was 113 (Kaltenbrunner).
    Although it would be nice to have more data on elite IQ the Nuremberg IQ tests probably give a fairly good idea of the IQ of the elites of Western countries. In the case of the Nuremberg defendents their average IQ exceeded that of the German population by between one and half to two standard deviations.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Realist, @rod1963

    Nonsense. Georgie is a moron and a low IQ never stopped anyone was born into the elite like George was from doing anything. This is what advisers are for, they do the heavy lifting while the inbred elite sits back and rakes in the cash.

    Even stupid people are admitted into the Ivies provided they are legacies, sons or daughters of powerful people or have the right ethnicity. Furthermore they won’t be failed, they’ll be given what is called a “gentleman’s C”, essentially the Ivy variant of social promotion.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @rod1963

    Excellent points.

  64. @Jack D
    @Anon

    The Iraq War turned out great in this sense: combat deaths were 10% of losses in Vietnam and 1% of losses in WWII. In some years, losses were less than in the peacetime years of the Cold War. A lot of this can be explained by the fact that we had a smaller, smarter army in Iraq.

    Replies: @Anon, @dearieme, @Drakejax, @MarkinLA, @rod1963, @Andrew Ryan

    Nope, we just rolled over a 4th world state that had no real military of note. Not to mention we had total air dominance will made everything so very easy. Any WWII military could have done the same to the Iraqis.

    However once the Iraqis figured out the grunts, they bled us good, in the end we never controlled anything more than the ground our troops stood on at the moment.

    And that smaller army was exhausted by that little war and occupation. We lacked sufficient numbers of soldiers to do proper troop rotations, etc.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @rod1963


    Nope, we just rolled over a 4th world state that had no real military of note
     
    Moshe Dayan, when asked for the secret to winning wars, answered, "Fight Arabs."
  65. @Steve Sailer
    @anonymous

    Ali was witty but illiterate. The documentary about his fight with Foreman shows him saying his biggest regret was never learning to read.

    Replies: @tbraton, @Anonymous, @Triumph104

    Islam like most large religions has a low intellectual barrier to entry.In this interview from around 2003 Ali’s wife Lonnie did most of the talking or should I say lying.

    Young Muslim: I heard that before you became Muslim, you never used to read and thought you couldn’t read very well?

    Lonnie Ali: Muhammad may have been dyslexic as a boy. He never focused on the mechanics of reading, but now he can spend hours a day reading. When he reads the Quran, he’ll copy out passages that really touch him. He reads Islamic books, research books, particularly those that point out contradictions in the Bible. He checks them out thoroughly, to find out if there’s any bias. http://www.soundvision.com/article/an-interview-with-muhammad-ali

    Ali has one biological son, Ali Jr. Unlike his sisters, Jr is dysfunctional, probably special needs. He is 42 or 43 and has a wife and two young children, lives on food stamps and handouts.

    I’m like a 12-year-old in a 41-year-old’s body now. I was always sheltered as a child, limited to what I could do, so I don’t know how to get out there and do it now,” he adds. http://nypost.com/2014/01/26/muhammad-alis-son-shut-off-dad-living-in-poverty-in-chicago/

  66. @rvg
    So how did the higher and capitalist IQ South lose to the lower and communist IQ north? And how did slightly higher IQ french troops lose in Dien Bien Phu? And how did high IQ southern Chinese lose to lower IQ northern Chinese and Mongols?

    Replies: @Lot, @bomag, @Bryan Bell

    To quote Steve, quoting Red Dawn “Because we live here.”
    I can’t comment China.

  67. Defeat in Vietnam had two components. First, under Cold War constraints the US refrained from invading and decisively defeating North Vietnam which it could have done easily, instead fought a severely limited war with the aim of avoiding defeat not bringing victory. Since Victory was feared to perhaps provoke global nuclear war with the Soviets and Chinese.

    Second, after the US withdrew ground forces, US Air Forces decisively destroyed conventional North Vietnamese armor, in what amounted to the “Highway of Death” that Saddam’s forces found in the Gulf War. US Air superiority simply decimated armor as they did in France in 1944 after Normandy and in the Gulf and Iraq Wars. However with Nixon facing impeachment the next year, Democrats pulled the plug on US Air support from Thailand and thus the NVA conventional armor invasion was unopposed and rolled to a conventional armored victory. Democrats WANTED a defeat to “teach America a lesson” and express their solidarity with the Third World.

    This was essentially the elite of America, the Ivy grads and students, wanting a borderless, Third World “utopia” in a reaction to growing US middle class affluence which they found threatening and its twin pillars of support: traditional nationalism and military success.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @Whiskey

    The US should never have been in Vietnam.

  68. War is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get.

  69. @MarkinLA
    @Jack D

    In WWII you had to get up close and personal in a fight. In Iraq, you have massive firepower that destroyed the enemy at a distance? What were the Iraqi casualties. In Iraq you could kill an enemy tank at 2 kilometers, in WWII it was about 300 meters

    Replies: @Boomstick

    After the initial battles against the organized Iraqi Army most of the fight was at the small unit level, often door-to-door raids and convoy operations.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    @Boomstick

    I don't think that is as significant as one would think since the US military resorts to massive firepower at the drop of a hat and that firepower is more concentrated and accurate than before. In WWII if a unit was pinned down by machine gun fire they would have to try and maneuver somebody into position to throw a grenade or have a sharpshooter take them out. In Iraq they would wait for the helicopter gunship to destroy the whole building.

    This is why the US casualty rate has gone down. After the initial encounter with the enemy, the air power takes over.

    Replies: @Boomstick

  70. @Realist
    @Jim

    "The assertion that Bush had an IQ less than average is utter nonsense. There is no way an individual with an IQ of less than 100 could become a member of the US elite"

    Bush was not a member of the power elite, he was controlled and manipulated by them. None of the decisions made were made by him. He did as he was told.

    What a silly argument for your proposition.... the IQ of Nazis

    Replies: @Neon

    Silly? So IQ too is reduced, like every other human trait apparently, to utter irrelevance when looking at Nazis? Is this true for Communists as well? And if not, then why not?
    In any case I am sure that Jim chose them, not because they were Nazis, but because their IQs are readily available.
    I am sure that the average IQs of the English and American war leaders were roughly comparable to the Germans, and I suspect that the Japanese had the highest average of all.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @Neon

    "In any case I am sure that Jim chose them, not because they were Nazis, but because their IQs are readily available."

    Jim's a bozo.

  71. @The Man from K Street
    @Reg Cæsar


    Eddie Slovik is the poster child for lower standards. His draft board in Detroit rejected him in 1943. In 1944, under pressure, they reluctantly accepted him. By then, we were overextended.
     
    Slovik was rejected for service in '43 not just because he was a moron, but for the same reason that plenty of men with IQs over 120 were:
    He was married.
    You could volunteer if you were a married man, but for almost the entire length of the modern draft in America--1917-1918, 1940-1946 and 1948-1973, marriage was a factor in draft status, and being married with dependents was an absolute cause for exemption. This is what people who always love to call Cheney a chickenhawk forget--the only time he was realistically draft eligible was in 1964--as if a telephone linesman in Wyoming newly married to his high school sweetheart is some kind of "Fortunate Son" and who was supposed to know Vietnam was going to become as big a war as it did (In '64 it was backpage news).

    It was only in an 18-month stretch of time from the middle of '43 to the end of '44 that the bottom of the manpower pool had been reached, and married-with-kids winners like Louis Till got their draft notices. And there were I think only two draft years after 1965 when married-with-dependents were even eligible, let alone moved to the head of the line.

    Replies: @Honesthughgrant

    It was only in an 18-month stretch of time from the middle of ’43 to the end of ’44 that the bottom of the manpower pool had been reached, and married-with-kids winners like Louis Till got their draft notices. And there were I think only two draft years after 1965 when married-with-dependents were even eligible, let alone moved to the head of the line.

    Just a correction. Yes, I know its being picky. Pre-Pearl Harbor fathers had a draft exemption until October 1943 but almost none were drafted into well into 1944. Draft boards were encouraged to take the youngest fathers first. End result: almost 90% of fathers over the age of 30 never got drafted.

  72. Eddie Slovik is an interesting case. He wasn’t dumb – he was a jailhouse lawyer who never thought he’d be the 1 man in 10,000 who’d get shot for desertion. Jail had no terrors for him and he assumed he’d spend a few years in jail and then after the war get pardoned. Which is what actually happened to most all the deserters – except him.

    Usually, the boards would sentence combat deserters like Slovik to death if they refused to go back into combat but then Ike or some General always commuted the death sentence. Unfortunately for Slovik, he not only was a self-admitted deserter, he flat-out refused to go back into combat for any reason. And he put this all in writing. There was no reason for anyone to give him a 2nd chance or plead extenuating circumstance.

    Then to top it all, his plea to commute his death sentence came to Ike at the height of the battle of the bulge when US losses and also desertions were at an all time high.

    So poor Eddie got shot.

    • Replies: @The Man From K Street
    @Honesthughgrant

    he assumed he’d spend a few years in jail and then after the war get pardoned. Which is what actually happened to most all the deserters – except him.

    Several years back (in the 80s) the old American Heritage magazine published a really good article written by a dentist who had been one of the officers on Slovik's board, who said that he and the others never thought Slovik would actually be executed. The irony was that the dentist himself was later captured in the Ardennes, and as he huddled in some Stalag that late winter and early spring, he chuckled thinking that Eddie had gotten the better deal, no doubt getting three squares a day in a comfortable stockade. When he was released, he was flabbergasted on learning that the sentence had been carried out.

    In the end analysis he said the bottom line was that Slovik simply did not get a fair trial. He said you can blame Slovik's strategy, or Ike's review, all you want, but he was one of the judges there and it. was. not. a fair. trial.

    Incidentally, the fact that a draftee dentist was standing in as a battalion surgeon in a front-line aid station in the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944 is illustrative of how bad the manpower situation was at that point.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Honesthughgrant

  73. @Realist
    @Reg Cæsar

    "“Realist” just can’t wrap his mind around how the smart can be infinitely stupider than the stupid. In other words, he’s no realist."

    That statement is so nonsensical as to be surreal.

    Replies: @Anonym

    High IQ people can be suicidally dumb at times, especially if they are prone to group think and the group think is dumb (as PC is).

  74. @Honesthughgrant
    Eddie Slovik is an interesting case. He wasn't dumb - he was a jailhouse lawyer who never thought he'd be the 1 man in 10,000 who'd get shot for desertion. Jail had no terrors for him and he assumed he'd spend a few years in jail and then after the war get pardoned. Which is what actually happened to most all the deserters - except him.

    Usually, the boards would sentence combat deserters like Slovik to death if they refused to go back into combat but then Ike or some General always commuted the death sentence. Unfortunately for Slovik, he not only was a self-admitted deserter, he flat-out refused to go back into combat for any reason. And he put this all in writing. There was no reason for anyone to give him a 2nd chance or plead extenuating circumstance.

    Then to top it all, his plea to commute his death sentence came to Ike at the height of the battle of the bulge when US losses and also desertions were at an all time high.

    So poor Eddie got shot.

    Replies: @The Man From K Street

    he assumed he’d spend a few years in jail and then after the war get pardoned. Which is what actually happened to most all the deserters – except him.

    Several years back (in the 80s) the old American Heritage magazine published a really good article written by a dentist who had been one of the officers on Slovik’s board, who said that he and the others never thought Slovik would actually be executed. The irony was that the dentist himself was later captured in the Ardennes, and as he huddled in some Stalag that late winter and early spring, he chuckled thinking that Eddie had gotten the better deal, no doubt getting three squares a day in a comfortable stockade. When he was released, he was flabbergasted on learning that the sentence had been carried out.

    In the end analysis he said the bottom line was that Slovik simply did not get a fair trial. He said you can blame Slovik’s strategy, or Ike’s review, all you want, but he was one of the judges there and it. was. not. a fair. trial.

    Incidentally, the fact that a draftee dentist was standing in as a battalion surgeon in a front-line aid station in the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944 is illustrative of how bad the manpower situation was at that point.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @The Man From K Street

    Slovik was a loud mouth so Ike made an example out of him. Pour encourager les autres.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pour%20encourager%20les%20autres

    , @Honesthughgrant
    @The Man From K Street

    Not a Fair Trial? Not sure about that. I'm going by the book Bill Huie.

    Slovik admitted in writing he'd deserted, stated he would never go back in combat, and after conviction refused another chance to go back in combat. Don't know how you get an innocent verdict out of that.

    And yeah, there was a doctor shortage in WW2. Between the needs of the military and the Homefront, not enough to go around. Same with trained nurses. In fact, the US Govt was considering drafting nurses - but the war in Europe ended.

    Replies: @The Man From K Street, @The Man From K Street

  75. @rod1963
    @Jim

    Nonsense. Georgie is a moron and a low IQ never stopped anyone was born into the elite like George was from doing anything. This is what advisers are for, they do the heavy lifting while the inbred elite sits back and rakes in the cash.

    Even stupid people are admitted into the Ivies provided they are legacies, sons or daughters of powerful people or have the right ethnicity. Furthermore they won't be failed, they'll be given what is called a "gentleman's C", essentially the Ivy variant of social promotion.

    Replies: @Realist

    Excellent points.

  76. @Neon
    @Realist

    Silly? So IQ too is reduced, like every other human trait apparently, to utter irrelevance when looking at Nazis? Is this true for Communists as well? And if not, then why not?
    In any case I am sure that Jim chose them, not because they were Nazis, but because their IQs are readily available.
    I am sure that the average IQs of the English and American war leaders were roughly comparable to the Germans, and I suspect that the Japanese had the highest average of all.

    Replies: @Realist

    “In any case I am sure that Jim chose them, not because they were Nazis, but because their IQs are readily available.”

    Jim’s a bozo.

  77. @Whiskey
    Defeat in Vietnam had two components. First, under Cold War constraints the US refrained from invading and decisively defeating North Vietnam which it could have done easily, instead fought a severely limited war with the aim of avoiding defeat not bringing victory. Since Victory was feared to perhaps provoke global nuclear war with the Soviets and Chinese.

    Second, after the US withdrew ground forces, US Air Forces decisively destroyed conventional North Vietnamese armor, in what amounted to the "Highway of Death" that Saddam's forces found in the Gulf War. US Air superiority simply decimated armor as they did in France in 1944 after Normandy and in the Gulf and Iraq Wars. However with Nixon facing impeachment the next year, Democrats pulled the plug on US Air support from Thailand and thus the NVA conventional armor invasion was unopposed and rolled to a conventional armored victory. Democrats WANTED a defeat to "teach America a lesson" and express their solidarity with the Third World.

    This was essentially the elite of America, the Ivy grads and students, wanting a borderless, Third World "utopia" in a reaction to growing US middle class affluence which they found threatening and its twin pillars of support: traditional nationalism and military success.

    Replies: @Realist

    The US should never have been in Vietnam.

  78. @Sean
    @Reg Cæsar

    The air force took the best men. Air crew were the types who became NCOs in the army.

    In WW2 thousands of trainee pilots were transferred to the army infantry, ha ha.

    Replies: @The Man From K Street

    The air force took the best men. Air crew were the types who became NCOs in the army.

    That was true of both sides in WW2, and mostly true today. The Germans, not surprisingly, administered a lot of aptitude tests, and found that the average Luftwaffe enlistee was way more intelligent, and also better motivated, than his Heer (Army) counterpart. In any sane system, once the Germans had most of the air force shot out of the sky (around 1943), they would have transferred most of the now-excess Luftwaffe enlisted men to the Army, where they would have made first-rate infantrymen if integrated into existing Army formations.

    But that wasn’t good enough for Hermann Goering. He had to insist that they stay in air force uniform, and form Luftwaffe “field divisions” to fight as ground forces under air force command. Plus, they would stay good National Socialists under Nazi commissars, and not come under the old monarchist, reactionary influence of the Army. Needless to say, it all ended in tears: The “field divisions” crumpled under fire like wet newspaper.

  79. @Big Bill
    @Reg Cæsar

    Emmett Till's father, too.

    I heard that the Americal (Calley, My Lai)unit was assembled from these mental defects, too.

    Replies: @Mr. Blank

    Yeah, I seem to remember reading this too. Apparently Calley was just a total screwup who should have never been in a leadership position — but by that point in the war, they were scraping the bottom of the barrel for leadership, and he was one of the ones they dredged up. I think the Abu Ghraib outrages were also committed by a bunch of dim bulb troops, too.

    It would be interesting to survey the IQ scores of convicted war criminals to see how they stack up against the average for all soldiers…

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Mr. Blank

    Mr. Blank said, "... I think the Abu Ghraib outrages were also committed by a bunch of dim bulb troops, too".

    Yeah, I think they were reservists. They were also commanded by a Major General who did not have very good fitness reports, which is usually a career ender. But she was a woman, and it all got blamed on Bush. Funny how that happens.

    Yet our current CINC is executing American citizens with drone strikes on his own authority and no one has a problem with that. But Gitmo is still Bush's fault. Funny how that happens.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  80. @Mr. Blank
    @Big Bill

    Yeah, I seem to remember reading this too. Apparently Calley was just a total screwup who should have never been in a leadership position — but by that point in the war, they were scraping the bottom of the barrel for leadership, and he was one of the ones they dredged up. I think the Abu Ghraib outrages were also committed by a bunch of dim bulb troops, too.

    It would be interesting to survey the IQ scores of convicted war criminals to see how they stack up against the average for all soldiers...

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Mr. Blank said, “… I think the Abu Ghraib outrages were also committed by a bunch of dim bulb troops, too”.

    Yeah, I think they were reservists. They were also commanded by a Major General who did not have very good fitness reports, which is usually a career ender. But she was a woman, and it all got blamed on Bush. Funny how that happens.

    Yet our current CINC is executing American citizens with drone strikes on his own authority and no one has a problem with that. But Gitmo is still Bush’s fault. Funny how that happens.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Jim Don Bob


    Mr. Blank said, “… I think the Abu Ghraib outrages were also committed by a bunch of dim bulb troops, too”.

    Yeah, I think they were reservists. They were also commanded by a Major General who did not have very good fitness reports, which is usually a career ender. But she was a woman, and it all got blamed on Bush. Funny how that happens.
     
    I thought Lynndie England should have been awarded Feminist of the Year for whatever year that was. But maybe la génerale deserved it more.
  81. @The Man From K Street
    @Honesthughgrant

    he assumed he’d spend a few years in jail and then after the war get pardoned. Which is what actually happened to most all the deserters – except him.

    Several years back (in the 80s) the old American Heritage magazine published a really good article written by a dentist who had been one of the officers on Slovik's board, who said that he and the others never thought Slovik would actually be executed. The irony was that the dentist himself was later captured in the Ardennes, and as he huddled in some Stalag that late winter and early spring, he chuckled thinking that Eddie had gotten the better deal, no doubt getting three squares a day in a comfortable stockade. When he was released, he was flabbergasted on learning that the sentence had been carried out.

    In the end analysis he said the bottom line was that Slovik simply did not get a fair trial. He said you can blame Slovik's strategy, or Ike's review, all you want, but he was one of the judges there and it. was. not. a fair. trial.

    Incidentally, the fact that a draftee dentist was standing in as a battalion surgeon in a front-line aid station in the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944 is illustrative of how bad the manpower situation was at that point.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Honesthughgrant

    Slovik was a loud mouth so Ike made an example out of him. Pour encourager les autres.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pour%20encourager%20les%20autres

  82. @Boomstick
    @MarkinLA

    After the initial battles against the organized Iraqi Army most of the fight was at the small unit level, often door-to-door raids and convoy operations.

    Replies: @MarkinLA

    I don’t think that is as significant as one would think since the US military resorts to massive firepower at the drop of a hat and that firepower is more concentrated and accurate than before. In WWII if a unit was pinned down by machine gun fire they would have to try and maneuver somebody into position to throw a grenade or have a sharpshooter take them out. In Iraq they would wait for the helicopter gunship to destroy the whole building.

    This is why the US casualty rate has gone down. After the initial encounter with the enemy, the air power takes over.

    • Replies: @Boomstick
    @MarkinLA

    In WW2 they'd have called on the quite efficient US artillery, which the US had in large amounts and used a lot. The ROE in Iraq wasn't quite as expansive as you seem to think, and the combat involved a lot of house-to-house searches.

    Replies: @MarkinLA

  83. @The Man From K Street
    @Honesthughgrant

    he assumed he’d spend a few years in jail and then after the war get pardoned. Which is what actually happened to most all the deserters – except him.

    Several years back (in the 80s) the old American Heritage magazine published a really good article written by a dentist who had been one of the officers on Slovik's board, who said that he and the others never thought Slovik would actually be executed. The irony was that the dentist himself was later captured in the Ardennes, and as he huddled in some Stalag that late winter and early spring, he chuckled thinking that Eddie had gotten the better deal, no doubt getting three squares a day in a comfortable stockade. When he was released, he was flabbergasted on learning that the sentence had been carried out.

    In the end analysis he said the bottom line was that Slovik simply did not get a fair trial. He said you can blame Slovik's strategy, or Ike's review, all you want, but he was one of the judges there and it. was. not. a fair. trial.

    Incidentally, the fact that a draftee dentist was standing in as a battalion surgeon in a front-line aid station in the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944 is illustrative of how bad the manpower situation was at that point.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Honesthughgrant

    Not a Fair Trial? Not sure about that. I’m going by the book Bill Huie.

    Slovik admitted in writing he’d deserted, stated he would never go back in combat, and after conviction refused another chance to go back in combat. Don’t know how you get an innocent verdict out of that.

    And yeah, there was a doctor shortage in WW2. Between the needs of the military and the Homefront, not enough to go around. Same with trained nurses. In fact, the US Govt was considering drafting nurses – but the war in Europe ended.

    • Replies: @The Man From K Street
    @Honesthughgrant


    Not a Fair Trial? Not sure about that. I’m going by the book Bill Huie.
     
    Found the fascinating 1987 article by Benedict B. Kimmelman DDS, who discusses at length not only his experiences in the trial and his own later capture, but his own participation in Huie's research for the book, and where Huie got it right and where he flatly misquoted Kimmelman:
    http://www.americanheritage.com/node/55767

    The money quote: "In the course of the Slovik trial, an experienced defense counsel might have sweated the division psychiatrist on his statement “I consider him sane and responsible for his actions.” He might also have located some witnesses to say something on behalf of the defendant’s ordinary conduct. The circumstances were, therefore, such that Slovik could not receive a fair trial. We members of the court, all of us, were what would today be described as “establishment types.” Our lack of firsthand, close-up battle experience disqualified us as a jury of Slovak’s peers. The legal inexperience of his defense counsel amounted to a failure to grant him the full benefit of his day in court. He did not receive a fair trial."
    (emphasis added)

    , @The Man From K Street
    @Honesthughgrant


    Slovik admitted in writing he’d deserted, stated he would never go back in combat, and after conviction refused another chance to go back in combat. Don’t know how you get an innocent verdict out of that.
     
    Not "innocent", just an acquittal. And a canny defense attorney can find that acquittal with hard work. Kimmelman reports on a similar wartime court martial:

    It is simply not true that legal skills have no place in courts-martial. A few weeks before the Slovik trial, I had served on a general court-martial that tried a private for the deliberate murder of his sergeant at close quarters in broad daylight before numbers of witnesses. The killer had as his defense counsel Lt. Col. Thomas Hoban, the officer who was later in charge of the task force in Wiltz for which I volunteered. In civilian life Hoban was a judge. The site of the killing was a street outside a bar in a French village. Cross-examining the military surgeon who had pronounced the sergeant dead, Hoban drew from him the acknowledgment that “of course” he had not conducted an autopsy. On the grounds that we were in the midst of hostilities and that it was therefore not impossible that the sergeant had been fortuitously killed by a stray enemy bullet, and with no incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, Hoban moved for a directed acquittal. The prosecutor was speechless. The court sat in closed session wrestling with this for more than an hour before we came to our senses. It was an all-day trial. The killer was said to be the most hated and feared man in his squad; the sergeant, highly respected and liked. The verdict was guilty; the sentence, life imprisonment. Later, when I asked Hoban what he would have done if his maneuver had succeeded, he said he would have made sure his client had been confined to the stockade on some pretext or other.

  84. @Honesthughgrant
    @The Man From K Street

    Not a Fair Trial? Not sure about that. I'm going by the book Bill Huie.

    Slovik admitted in writing he'd deserted, stated he would never go back in combat, and after conviction refused another chance to go back in combat. Don't know how you get an innocent verdict out of that.

    And yeah, there was a doctor shortage in WW2. Between the needs of the military and the Homefront, not enough to go around. Same with trained nurses. In fact, the US Govt was considering drafting nurses - but the war in Europe ended.

    Replies: @The Man From K Street, @The Man From K Street

    Not a Fair Trial? Not sure about that. I’m going by the book Bill Huie.

    Found the fascinating 1987 article by Benedict B. Kimmelman DDS, who discusses at length not only his experiences in the trial and his own later capture, but his own participation in Huie’s research for the book, and where Huie got it right and where he flatly misquoted Kimmelman:
    http://www.americanheritage.com/node/55767

    The money quote: “In the course of the Slovik trial, an experienced defense counsel might have sweated the division psychiatrist on his statement “I consider him sane and responsible for his actions.” He might also have located some witnesses to say something on behalf of the defendant’s ordinary conduct. The circumstances were, therefore, such that Slovik could not receive a fair trial. We members of the court, all of us, were what would today be described as “establishment types.” Our lack of firsthand, close-up battle experience disqualified us as a jury of Slovak’s peers. The legal inexperience of his defense counsel amounted to a failure to grant him the full benefit of his day in court. He did not receive a fair trial.”
    (emphasis added)

  85. @Honesthughgrant
    @The Man From K Street

    Not a Fair Trial? Not sure about that. I'm going by the book Bill Huie.

    Slovik admitted in writing he'd deserted, stated he would never go back in combat, and after conviction refused another chance to go back in combat. Don't know how you get an innocent verdict out of that.

    And yeah, there was a doctor shortage in WW2. Between the needs of the military and the Homefront, not enough to go around. Same with trained nurses. In fact, the US Govt was considering drafting nurses - but the war in Europe ended.

    Replies: @The Man From K Street, @The Man From K Street

    Slovik admitted in writing he’d deserted, stated he would never go back in combat, and after conviction refused another chance to go back in combat. Don’t know how you get an innocent verdict out of that.

    Not “innocent”, just an acquittal. And a canny defense attorney can find that acquittal with hard work. Kimmelman reports on a similar wartime court martial:

    It is simply not true that legal skills have no place in courts-martial. A few weeks before the Slovik trial, I had served on a general court-martial that tried a private for the deliberate murder of his sergeant at close quarters in broad daylight before numbers of witnesses. The killer had as his defense counsel Lt. Col. Thomas Hoban, the officer who was later in charge of the task force in Wiltz for which I volunteered. In civilian life Hoban was a judge. The site of the killing was a street outside a bar in a French village. Cross-examining the military surgeon who had pronounced the sergeant dead, Hoban drew from him the acknowledgment that “of course” he had not conducted an autopsy. On the grounds that we were in the midst of hostilities and that it was therefore not impossible that the sergeant had been fortuitously killed by a stray enemy bullet, and with no incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, Hoban moved for a directed acquittal. The prosecutor was speechless. The court sat in closed session wrestling with this for more than an hour before we came to our senses. It was an all-day trial. The killer was said to be the most hated and feared man in his squad; the sergeant, highly respected and liked. The verdict was guilty; the sentence, life imprisonment. Later, when I asked Hoban what he would have done if his maneuver had succeeded, he said he would have made sure his client had been confined to the stockade on some pretext or other.

  86. @BurplesonAFB
    @Reg Cæsar

    Buckley didn't mistrust the Harvard faculty because they were smart, he mistrusted them because many (a majority?) were out and out marxists/socialists/communists.

    Of course that's true of a lot of scandinavians and jews.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Buckley didn’t mistrust the Harvard faculty because they were smart, he mistrusted them because many (a majority?) were out and out marxists/socialists/communists.

    Such “out and outs” were primarily drawn from the intellectual class. How many Marxists would there have been on the first two pages of the white pages, even with the Aaronsons and Aalborgs?

  87. @rod1963
    @Jack D

    Nope, we just rolled over a 4th world state that had no real military of note. Not to mention we had total air dominance will made everything so very easy. Any WWII military could have done the same to the Iraqis.

    However once the Iraqis figured out the grunts, they bled us good, in the end we never controlled anything more than the ground our troops stood on at the moment.

    And that smaller army was exhausted by that little war and occupation. We lacked sufficient numbers of soldiers to do proper troop rotations, etc.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Nope, we just rolled over a 4th world state that had no real military of note

    Moshe Dayan, when asked for the secret to winning wars, answered, “Fight Arabs.”

  88. @Auntie Analogue
    @greysquirrell


    "How do the WW2 soldiers’ IQ compare to Vietnam era soldiers and how do the standards compare?"

     

    They compare identically.

    Early in both wars the military took in the best quality human material; later in the wars the military lowered the standards and inducted a lot of far from the best quality human material.

    In the two wars the reasons for this shift differ: in WWII the nation(s) simply ran out of the best quality human material - the shortage was actual; while in the Vietnam War the best quality human material was exempted from induction - the shortage was artificial. In both instances the military was compelled to induct lower quality personnel.

    The actual WWII & Vietnam War standards for IQ (or AFQT) don't matter, as in both instances the bar was set high early and later lowered, and in both instances the military inducted from the then-available pool of manpower. The IQ ranges of those two wars' manpower pools may not have been exactly the same (Flynn effect) but their graphs are parallel as are the graphs of the intelligence of the two wars' inductees.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @sturmrugergp100

    My uncle, USMC KIA Vietnam 1965, was one of the early high bar. After the Island, he was sent to learn Vietnamese. Only 20,000 servicemen of all the branches in the Vietnam era were trained out of 2.7 million who served in country. Those 20,000 were surely the right side of the curve.

  89. @dearieme
    @Jack D

    "A lot of this can be explained by the fact that we had a smaller, smarter army in Iraq." Part of this can also be explained by the US paying off various brigands not to attack her forces as they retreated out of the country.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Part of this can also be explained by the US paying off various brigands not to attack her forces as they retreated out of the country.

    America>her
    US>their

  90. @MarkinLA
    @Boomstick

    I don't think that is as significant as one would think since the US military resorts to massive firepower at the drop of a hat and that firepower is more concentrated and accurate than before. In WWII if a unit was pinned down by machine gun fire they would have to try and maneuver somebody into position to throw a grenade or have a sharpshooter take them out. In Iraq they would wait for the helicopter gunship to destroy the whole building.

    This is why the US casualty rate has gone down. After the initial encounter with the enemy, the air power takes over.

    Replies: @Boomstick

    In WW2 they’d have called on the quite efficient US artillery, which the US had in large amounts and used a lot. The ROE in Iraq wasn’t quite as expansive as you seem to think, and the combat involved a lot of house-to-house searches.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    @Boomstick

    In WW2 they’d have called on the quite efficient US artillery

    That artillery like a bombing run didn't have the precision necessary to take out a small target like a machine gunner and crew dug in. I think the ROE is Iraq has been greatly exaggerated for the dupes back home. I think that video of the camera crew being mowed down by the drone says more about the reality on the ground than the lies coming out of the Pentagon. Most of the door to door searches were for supposed hidden weapons stashes in the middle of the night and not part of any organised battle.

    Let's face it the lives of ordinary Iraqi's meant about as much as the lives of ordinary Vietnamese did. I don't blame the soldiers young guys in a shit-hole who just want to stay alive but I don't believe the lies our government says about our occupation there.

  91. @elmer
    Sorry for the dump about my old man but you triggered me with the McNamara observation.

    I have published a book and started a blog about how to use PUA techniques in the job search.

    You can download a free 60-page preview here (no registration required) :

    https://employmentgame.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/employment-game-preview-download/

    Replies: @Carlton Fisk

    I enjoyed the post about your father.

  92. @Jack D
    @Anon

    The Iraq War turned out great in this sense: combat deaths were 10% of losses in Vietnam and 1% of losses in WWII. In some years, losses were less than in the peacetime years of the Cold War. A lot of this can be explained by the fact that we had a smaller, smarter army in Iraq.

    Replies: @Anon, @dearieme, @Drakejax, @MarkinLA, @rod1963, @Andrew Ryan

    Keep in mind that medical technology and trauma care have advanced dramatically as well. There are many, many battlefield wounds that would have been lethal in WWII or Vietnam that were not so in Iraq. Relatedly, when comparing murder rates over time keep in mind our rates today are artificially depressed by medical advancement. This level of inner city violence 50 years ago would increase the murder rate several fold.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  93. @tbraton
    "Ali was witty but illiterate. The documentary about his fight with Foreman shows him saying his biggest regret was never learning to read."

    Well, I seem to recall reading that Charlemagne (or "Charles the Great") could neither read nor write, and he achieved great things. I also remember that the Washington Redskins under Joe Gibbs had a great defensive end, Dexter Manley, who, it was later revealed, had graduated from Oklahoma State University even though he was illiterate. Think what a great intellectual accomplishment that was. Graduating from a fine American university and not being able to read. I know how hard some of my college courses were even though I could read. I can't imagine passing some of them being unable to read. My hat's off to Dexter Manley, the Charlemagne of the Washington Redskins.

    Replies: @FPD72

    Dexter did not graduate from OSU; he ran out of athletic eligibility. That doesn’t remove all of the stain from OSU because he was able to maintain academic eligibility for four seasons.

    How do you pass college classes if you can’t read? Something fishy was going on in Stillwater, but I doubt that OSU’s actions were particular to that school.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    @FPD72

    Billy Don Jackson at UCLA was functionally illiterate. He used to occasionally get high with some guys I knew in the dorm. The athletic department hires people to hold your hand. The professors agree to let you do your work in ways that can hide your inability. Instead of writing papers or taking written exams they let you do your work orally. The tutors probably make use of past exams to coach the student in the same way fraternities keep old exams on file for general ed classes that are known to have lazy professors. The tutor reads to you and does most of your work while pretending that you are actually doing it..

    , @tbraton
    @FPD72

    Dexter Manley played for the Redskins from 1981-89. I may have misremembered or it was misreported about graduating from OSU. He was a great defensive end for the Skins. But you are right: "How do you pass college classes if you can't read?" I had an older cousin who made all-city in D.C. playing tackle back in the late 40's or early 50's and got an offer to attend Clemson. But he couldn't get admitted because of scholastic requirements. "Clemson." So, obviously, standards have deteriorated over the years, scandalously so in my opinion.

  94. @Jim Don Bob
    @Mr. Blank

    Mr. Blank said, "... I think the Abu Ghraib outrages were also committed by a bunch of dim bulb troops, too".

    Yeah, I think they were reservists. They were also commanded by a Major General who did not have very good fitness reports, which is usually a career ender. But she was a woman, and it all got blamed on Bush. Funny how that happens.

    Yet our current CINC is executing American citizens with drone strikes on his own authority and no one has a problem with that. But Gitmo is still Bush's fault. Funny how that happens.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Mr. Blank said, “… I think the Abu Ghraib outrages were also committed by a bunch of dim bulb troops, too”.

    Yeah, I think they were reservists. They were also commanded by a Major General who did not have very good fitness reports, which is usually a career ender. But she was a woman, and it all got blamed on Bush. Funny how that happens.

    I thought Lynndie England should have been awarded Feminist of the Year for whatever year that was. But maybe la génerale deserved it more.

  95. @Drakejax
    Low performance at the tactical level in Vietnam was not just the low quality of recruits; all the World War II vets hit their 20 at the beginning of the war and punched out leaving the army bereft of good sergeants (especially since the WWII vets had jammed the natural promotion pipeline for so long).

    The operational and strategic problems with the war were due to a failure of political leadership that senior military leaders refused to confront. There were war plans on the shelf for how to win the war but they were never implemented. Things like cut the Ho Chi Minh highway with ground troops instead of endlessly stepping on mines while hunting guerrillas in the south.

    Replies: @NotAnonymousYet

    There were war plans on the shelf for how to win the war but they were never implemented. Things like cut the Ho Chi Minh highway with ground troops instead of endlessly stepping on mines while hunting guerrillas in the south.

    That would have meant ground invasion of Laos/Cambodia. There was no domestic political support for this.

  96. @Boomstick
    @MarkinLA

    In WW2 they'd have called on the quite efficient US artillery, which the US had in large amounts and used a lot. The ROE in Iraq wasn't quite as expansive as you seem to think, and the combat involved a lot of house-to-house searches.

    Replies: @MarkinLA

    In WW2 they’d have called on the quite efficient US artillery

    That artillery like a bombing run didn’t have the precision necessary to take out a small target like a machine gunner and crew dug in. I think the ROE is Iraq has been greatly exaggerated for the dupes back home. I think that video of the camera crew being mowed down by the drone says more about the reality on the ground than the lies coming out of the Pentagon. Most of the door to door searches were for supposed hidden weapons stashes in the middle of the night and not part of any organised battle.

    Let’s face it the lives of ordinary Iraqi’s meant about as much as the lives of ordinary Vietnamese did. I don’t blame the soldiers young guys in a shit-hole who just want to stay alive but I don’t believe the lies our government says about our occupation there.

  97. @FPD72
    @tbraton

    Dexter did not graduate from OSU; he ran out of athletic eligibility. That doesn't remove all of the stain from OSU because he was able to maintain academic eligibility for four seasons.

    How do you pass college classes if you can't read? Something fishy was going on in Stillwater, but I doubt that OSU's actions were particular to that school.

    Replies: @MarkinLA, @tbraton

    Billy Don Jackson at UCLA was functionally illiterate. He used to occasionally get high with some guys I knew in the dorm. The athletic department hires people to hold your hand. The professors agree to let you do your work in ways that can hide your inability. Instead of writing papers or taking written exams they let you do your work orally. The tutors probably make use of past exams to coach the student in the same way fraternities keep old exams on file for general ed classes that are known to have lazy professors. The tutor reads to you and does most of your work while pretending that you are actually doing it..

  98. @FPD72
    @tbraton

    Dexter did not graduate from OSU; he ran out of athletic eligibility. That doesn't remove all of the stain from OSU because he was able to maintain academic eligibility for four seasons.

    How do you pass college classes if you can't read? Something fishy was going on in Stillwater, but I doubt that OSU's actions were particular to that school.

    Replies: @MarkinLA, @tbraton

    Dexter Manley played for the Redskins from 1981-89. I may have misremembered or it was misreported about graduating from OSU. He was a great defensive end for the Skins. But you are right: “How do you pass college classes if you can’t read?” I had an older cousin who made all-city in D.C. playing tackle back in the late 40’s or early 50’s and got an offer to attend Clemson. But he couldn’t get admitted because of scholastic requirements. “Clemson.” So, obviously, standards have deteriorated over the years, scandalously so in my opinion.

  99. @Anon
    That must be why Iraq War turned out so great. Higher IQ soldiers.

    PS. What accounts for the dumb war planning? Surely, Bush and co. have higher than average IQ.

    Replies: @Realist, @Jack D, @Ed, @JohnnyWalker123

    Surely, Bush and co. have higher than average IQ.

    Doubtful.

  100. Really liked this post, as well as other posts about military and IQ. If you have more, please post them.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS