IQ test

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Oh God...I said no such thing. I said the military started using these tests a long time ago, and they use the results as a requirement for various jobs. A category 4 recruit, for instance, would not allowed in the signal corps.

I didn't say they invented it.

Are you people being intentionally thick just to annoy me?

So you're disagreeing for the sake of it? Nobody denied that the U.S. used it. Shallow just said that wasn't what it was invented for.

I hope we've broken it down simply enough for you.

D

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Read the post shallow was responding to, the reference to US soldiers was direct and unmistakable.

I'm not wasting anymore time on this, it's like trying to nail down a piece of spaghetti, everytime I patiently explain things to you, you come back with some other absurdity.

nope, you're just digging your way to china trying to appear like that's where you were heading all the time. these things get noticed you know, even by us dummies, so why not just own up to your mistake?

Originally posted by Ragnorak
So you're disagreeing for the sake of it? Nobody denied that the U.S. used it. Shallow just said that wasn't what it was invented for.

I hope we've broken it down simply enough for you.

D

No, he said that they weren't used for categorizing military recruits, and that QUOTE THEY NEVER WERE UNQUOTE.

They most certainly are, and not just by the US, but by any modern military, FRANCE included. What else would they be used for by the military?

Originally posted by wormwood
nope, you're just digging your way to china trying to appear like that's where you were heading all the time. these things get noticed you know, even by us dummies, so why not just own up to your mistake?

God is that what I was doing 5 years ago?

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
No, he said that they weren't used for categorizing military recruits, and that QUOTE THEY NEVER WERE UNQUOTE.

No, I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.

I said:
- that IQ tests were never intended to be used like that;
- that it never worked to use them like that.

That last point may have been a bit subtle for you. I did not write that nobody used IQ tests for this purpose; I wrote that they used them to bad effect. You get a categorisation if you use IQ tests like this; but you do not get the categorisation they were looking for, because using IQ to determine fitness for a function or group of functions does not work.

Clear now? Or will I have to resort to military jargon to get you to understand my words?

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
No, I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.

I said:
- that IQ tests were never intended to be used like that;
- that it never worked to use them like that.

That last point may have been a bit subtle for you. I did not write that nobody used IQ tests for this purpose; I wrote that they used them to bad effect. You get a catego ...[text shortened]... now? Or will I have to resort to military jargon to get you to understand my words?

Richard

OH.....MY......GOD. You're right. You said they were never MEANT to be used like that.

Boy is my face red.

All this fuss over one little word.

Now explain how it doesn't work for them to be used in such a manner. Having been in the military I've seen first hand the difference between Cat 1 and Cat 4 recruits, and the jobs they are eligible for.

I also have a problem with with your claim that they weren't meant to be used in such a way. The military GQ test was designed specifically to be used in such a way, and it works quite well.

So we're still at odds, I guess.......and you're still wrong.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Now explain how it doesn't work for them to be used in such a manner. Having been in the military I've seen first hand the difference between Cat 1 and Cat 4 recruits, and the jobs they are eligible for.

if you test for specific traits, targeting a certain type of job, you'll probably get some correlation. but if you use a general descriptor, as IQ, you'll get a low correlation.

if you test people with a math oriented test, well, what could be a better way to find out how they'll do in math? but use a general IQ test, and you'll lose the information of pretty much any indication of special traits the individual might have, ending up with a measure (average of sorts) of how one does in (that specific kind of) a general test. which is pretty much useless knowledge.

Originally posted by wormwood
if you test for specific traits, targeting a certain type of job, you'll probably get some correlation. but if you use a general descriptor, as IQ, you'll get a low correlation.

if you test people with a math oriented test, well, what could be a better way to find out how they'll do in math? but use a general IQ test, and you'll lose the informati ...[text shortened]... does in (that specific kind of) a general test[/i]. which is pretty much useless knowledge.

OK for once we're actually in agreement. That's why the military uses a wide battery of different Aptitude Tests, as well as a general IQ test, for placement. When I was in, a Personality Profile test was even required for appointment to OCS, in order to weed out sociopaths, etc.
So they're trying to cover all the bases. Ya think?

Of course some people will whine and cry about how all these efforts don't do any good because they're imperfect in some way, test results can be skewed, that's not what they were meant for, blah blah blah, but by and large they work pretty well, and certainly beat the alternative, which would be no testing at all and just take your chances on chaotic random placement.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
OK for once we're actually in agreement. That's why the military uses a wide battery of different Aptitude Tests, as well as a general IQ test, for placement. When I was in, a Personality Profile test was even required for appointment to OCS, in order to weed out sociopaths, etc.
So they're trying to cover all the bases. Ya think?

Of course some ...[text shortened]... e, which would be no testing at all and just take your chances on chaotic random placement.

also, they're probably not interested in getting an accurate psychological evaluation, nor in providing the finance, time and human resources that kind of a test would take. so, they'll spit out a standardized test that can be computer checked. and if you happen to end up as a square block in a round hole, in the age-old military way, they'll hammer you until you fit the hole you're assigned to.

Originally posted by wormwood
also, they're probably not interested in getting an accurate psychological evaluation, nor in providing the finance, time and human resources that kind of a test would take. so, they'll spit out a standardized test that can be computer checked. and if you happen to end up as a square block in a round hole, in the age-old military way, they'll hammer you until you fit the hole you're assigned to.

You just did exactly what I predicted.

Actually the American military has come a long way in that regard, if someone's not making it, it's not too hard to get out. As far as the finance, time, resources involved in getting an accurate evaluation, what they get is pretty accurate, and when you're dealing with hundreds of thousands of recruits each year, what in the world do you expect? A private team of psychiatrists for each recruit in a week long seminar? They're doing the best they can with what they got,and they do damn good.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Now explain how it doesn't work for them to be used in such a manner. Having been in the military I've seen first hand the difference between Cat 1 and Cat 4 recruits, and the jobs they are eligible for.

I also have a problem with with your claim that they weren't meant to be used in such a way. The military GQ test was designed specifically to be used in such a way, and it works quite well.

If it's a "military GQ test", designed specifically to separate the cannon fodder from the plush in Washington, then it isn't an IQ test, is it? Of course it's quite possible to devise tests to separate the command givers from the command followers. They won't be perfectly accurate, but hey, nothing is. However, a test like that will measure something quite different from the IQ, and its results will only show a partial correlation with IQ tests at best.

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
If it's a "military [b]GQ test", designed specifically to separate the cannon fodder from the plush in Washington, then it isn't an IQ test, is it? Of course it's quite possible to devise tests to separate the command givers from the command followers. They won't be perfectly accurate, but hey, nothing is. However, a test like that will measu ...[text shortened]... IQ, and its results will only show a partial correlation with IQ tests at best.

Richard[/b]

You obviously didn't read the link, so I'm doing your homework again:

The military GQ (General Quotient) test "The Armed Forces Qualifying test is basically a measure of IQ and is required of all recruits. It divides potential soldiers into categories I, II, IIIa, IIIb, IV, and V. Those who score in the bottom 10 percent (Category V) are disqualified completely, and the next 20 percent (Category IV) can never make up more than 4 percent of a year's recruits. "

Originally posted by wormwood
yea, and people criticizing totalitarian security measures are terrorists.

IQ is a mickey mouse concept, designed to compress a multidimensional unquantifiable set of psychological variables into a single number. it's simply ridiculous.

it's like taking a picture of a painting, measuring it's rgb components, calculating a single number from the ...[text shortened]... red enough from the average picture. it would work exactly like the IQ measurements.

IQ tests are spot on.

You must have a low IQ

Originally posted by uzless
IQ tests are spot on.

You must have a low IQ

Hehe - you're what we call a sheet-stirrer. 😀