University of Cambridge Cognitive Ability Test

I still do not understand why we are wasting scientific resources trying to stack rank humans on arbitrarily defined concepts like cognitive ability or intelligence.

After over a century of psychometric research in cognitive abilities and intelligence, what do we have to show for it? Whose life has actually improved for the better? Have the benefits from such research, if any, outweighed the amount of harm that has already been caused?

>resources trying to stack rank humans on arbitrarily defined concepts like cognitive ability or intelligence.

"arbitrarily defined concepts like cognitive ability or intelligence" correlate very well with objective metrics like educational attainment and income.

>the amount of harm that has already been caused?

Like what?

So is the goal to predict someone’s future income? Or to inform someone of how much money they supposedly should be making based on their test results and the supposed correlation between test results and income? Surely the test results aren’t being used anywhere to actually determine people’s income.

The goal is to predict if, for example, someone is better suited to sweeping the floors vs working with complex systems. Both are useful and respectable jobs but you both want an individual who can actually do it, not someone who just thinks they can, and someone whose capabilities won't be wasted on too simple tasks. These tests are great tools to help you figure out future performances of said individuals, as well as their satisfaction on the job/task. A mismatch will cause impact both for the individual and the company/military unit/etc.

The US Army requires a minimum AFQT percentile of 31 for enlistment which, based on standard IQ norms (mean = 100, SD = 15), maps to roughly an IQ of 85 (one standard deviation below mean).

I.e. if you have an IQ below 85 you can't even sweep up the floor for the army

And it’s because they found that using people below that threshold for _any purpose, including canon fodder_ has disastrously bad outcomes.

I mean, a quick look at the flynn effect would indicate that's complete fucking nonsense.

we won ww2 with an army a solid SD below today's 100.

Are you Russian?

Well the flynn effect is global so either the russians won ww2 with people an SD below today's mean IQ or the US military thinks that the russian army (that won ww2) circa '40 wasn't even fit for cannon fodder.

So you're arguing it ws low IQ vs low IQ? Okay... Do you have a point? I understand that you're upset for some reasno.

Do you have a counter-point? You think the army is stupid and you know better? What is your point?

Would you prefer your child have an IQ of 120 or 80? If you have a preference, then you're morally inconsistent and don't even realize it? That must be a frustrating condition to go through life with? At least try to have a nice day in spite of your limitations. It's not your fault, we're all equal in God's eyes.

Good job being incapable of synthesizing both of your perversions into a single post.

I am "arguing" (not arguing, simply stating basic facts) that neither Russia nor the USA were giving "IQ tests" to soldiers. Also neither Russia nor the USA are currently giving "IQ tests" to soldiers.

To Wit: I do not think the Army not accepting people who score too low on their entrance exam has anything to do with "IQ".

Also neither I nor my hypothetical child will be taking an "IQ test" (again not actually a defined thing) so having a preference is not a sensible idea.