"How the US Military Hurts the Poor And Uneducated"

[Lucky... 0]

I guess the best way to summarize this whole issue is:

If I had to go to battle and I could choose 10 randomly selected enlisted GI's or 10 randomly selected college kids, I would rather have the GI's. If I had to enter a spelling bee or some other contest that requires great intellect, academic knowledge, I would rather have the college kids. Now I could get lucky if I chose the college kids for battle and get some crazy football players like Tillman, or I could get lucky if I chose the GI's for the academic contest and get some real ringers, but if I'm playing the odds, and I am a gambler, I choose the GI's for battle and the colleg kids for intellectual games.

Hey, I might be wrong, but I bet all the folks condemning me for daring to claim that college kids are more intelligent than GI's would do the same exact thing.

I've been to college, I know some of the stupid arguments that go: "Like, so, how is it that ....." You can guess the rest. I was also in the military and I can say that there were some smart guys/girls, but the rest were like me and had no academic clue.

[Lucky... 0]

Looks like there are at least 2 predominant theories:

An example of the hereditarian view:

http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/rcattell.shtml

1) Hereditarian view

- Fluid abilities

- Fluid abilities ( Gf ) drive the individual's ability to think and act quickly, solve novel problems, and encode short-term memories. They have been described as the source of intelligence that an individual uses when he or she doesn't already know what to do. Fluid intelligence is grounded in physiological efficiency, and is thus relatively independent of education and acculturation (Horn, 1967).

- crystallized abilities

- The other factor, encompassing crystallized abilities ( Gc ), stems from learning and acculturation, and is reflected in tests of knowledge, general information, use of language (vocabulary) and a wide variety of acquired skills (Horn & Cattell, 1967). Personality factors, motivation and educational and cultural opportunity are central to its development, and it is only indirectly dependent on the physiological influences that mainly affect fluid abilities.

Even this factor has a learing requirement, so even the heredetary side has a learning requirement.

I like this:

He also noted that individuals with higher IQs tend to have fewer children than individuals with lower IQs. Therefore, he suggested that it would be prudent for more intelligent people to be encouraged to have more children, and that less intelligent individuals should have fewer. Although hardly a new idea (see our profiles of Robert Yerkes, Charles Darwin and Francis Galton, as well as our related Hot Topic), these views excited a great deal of controversy (Horn, 2000).


2) Environmental view

Many researchers believe that environmental factors primarily cause cultural and ethnic differences. They argue that because of a history of discrimination, minority groups comprise a disproportionately large part of the lower social classes, and therefore cultural and ethnic differences in intelligence are really differences among social classes. People in lower social classes have a relatively deprived environment. Children may have:
Fewer learning resources
Less privacy for study
Less parental assistance
Poorer role models
Lower-quality schools
Less motivation to excel intellectually

This explains that education is important toward an IQ test result:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570026_6/Intelligence.html

Schooling is an important factor that affects intelligence. Children who do not attend school or who attend intermittently score more poorly on IQ tests than those who attend regularly, and children who move from low-quality schools to high-quality schools tend to show improvements in IQ. Besides transmitting information to students directly, schools teach problem solving, abstract thinking, and how to sustain attention—all skills required on IQ tests

This really states the truth as I believ it:

If genetic influences account for between 40 and 80 percent of the variation in intelligence, then environmental influences account for between 20 and 60 percent of the total variation. Environmental factors comprise all the stimuli a person encounters from conception to death, including food, cultural information, education, and social experiences.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Nice to see you've been arguing against me when you ignored the sites I posted for days

Not ignoring them. You have shown no correlation between education and intelligence. You have only offered "opinion" as proof.

Quote

They displayed graphs that established 17% of military enlistees had some college, whereas 45-47% of civilians 18-24 had some college.

You keep trying to claim that college=intelligence. Its just not true. You claimed that "Dumber" people went into the service...Again you can't prove anything, only make claims.

As for why more cilivians went to college than military...Thats a no brainer. People pick a path. But you make unsubstansiated claims that the people that pick military service are dumber than those that pick school. You have shown NO connection.

Quote

you've done nothing empirical, posted no studies, to data; I have.

The only data you have shown is based on a faulty premise. That only "smart" people go to school and "dumb" people go to the military.

Quote

Scientifically, there is no such thing as proof

Proof :1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth

Quote

1) Education leads to intelligence

Education lead to *knowledge* that is not the same as intelligence. Quit trying to change definitions to fit your need.

Intelligence: 1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

Notice nothing about schooling?

Quote

2) Kids prone to enlist and who do are less intelligent than thise who go off to college.

And this is what you keep claiming, but never prove. Going to school makes a person EDUCATED, but has nothing to do with intelligence.

Quote

Do me a favor and at least support your argument against #1. Where do intelligent people come from?

Sure as soon as you answer the questions asked of you. Intelligence is ABILITY to understand concepts, not the ability to recite what you read or heard.

You have those two confused.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Not ignoring them. You have shown no correlation between education and intelligence. You have only offered "opinion" as proof.

This is probably the best way to summarize it:

http://encarta.msn.com/..._6/Intelligence.html

If genetic influences account for between 40 and 80 percent of the variation in intelligence, then environmental influences account for between 20 and 60 percent of the total variation. Environmental factors comprise all the stimuli a person encounters from conception to death, including food, cultural information, education, and social experiences.

And

Schooling is an important factor that affects intelligence. Children who do not attend school or who attend intermittently score more poorly on IQ tests than those who attend regularly, and children who move from low-quality schools to high-quality schools tend to show improvements in IQ. Besides transmitting information to students directly, schools teach problem solving, abstract thinking, and how to sustain attention—all skills required on IQ tests

Even in the genetic model, learned attributes are required:

- crystallized abilities

- The other factor, encompassing crystallized abilities ( Gc ), stems from learning and acculturation, and is reflected in tests of knowledge, general information, use of language (vocabulary) and a wide variety of acquired skills (Horn & Cattell, 1967). Personality factors, motivation and educational and cultural opportunity are central to its development, and it is only indirectly dependent on the physiological influences that mainly affect fluid abilities.


So the point is, as with most things, it isn’t either way but both ways; intelligence is both learned and genetic, with a slight leaning toward the genetic approach. I think this is a reasonable approach.

Quote

You keep trying to claim that college=intelligence. Its just not true. You claimed that "Dumber" people went into the service...Again you can't prove anything, only make claims.

Where did I claim dumber people went into the military? Again, I don’t prove things, proving things is best left for courts, which are inherently corrupt and for churches, where fallacies are dealt constantly. I do support my contentions and I just did by establishing education isn’t the only role, but a very important role with intelligence.

Quote

As for why more cilivians went to college than military...Thats a no brainer. People pick a path.

HUH????? People pick a path; WTF does that mean? BTW, I don’t think I claimed more people went to college, if I DOD show me and I’ll correct that, I believe I stated a higher rate of civilians went to college; 47% as compared to 17% with the military enlistees.

Quote

But you make unsubstansiated claims that the people that pick military service are dumber than those that pick school. You have shown NO connection.

Oh I have. Furthermore I didn’t choose the word, “dumber,” I think I wrote more intelligent people, as an average, chose college over enlisting and the intelligence factor diverged.

Quote

The only data you have shown is based on a faulty premise. That only "smart" people go to school and "dumb" people go to the military.

ONLY? Unless I err or speak in abstract or metaphor, I avoid using absolute words; show me where I wrote, “That only "smart" people go to school and "dumb" people go to the military.” I would appreciate no more misquoting.

Quote

Proof :1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth

As a person who believes in science, I choose to believe as they do that there is no such real thing as consistent truth. There used to be proof that women were born with a set number of eggs, now they say it might be a variable number. The problem with using absolute words is that you may have to eat them. Scientists try to use some humility and avoid the word-sandwich.

Quote

Education lead to *knowledge* that is not the same as intelligence. Quit trying to change definitions to fit your need.

Education is a part, 20-60% per the article above, of intelligence. If a person was a born genius, but locked in a closet until they were 16, would they still have the same intelligence? Unlikely. Environmental factors including child abuse, diet, schooling, class and others are huge, as much as 60% per the article above.

Intelligence: 1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

Notice nothing about schooling?

With that, a person could have that capacity and be a genius w/o ever stepping into a school, right? Also, your definition is correct, but incomplete:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intelligence

a : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations b : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

W/o knowledge, there would be no intelligence, right?

How about this synonym?

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/intelligence

advice, clue, data, dirt, disclosure, facts, findings, hot tip*, info*, inside dope, inside story*, knowledge, leak, lowdown*, news, notice, notification, picture, poop sheet, report, rumor, tidings, tip-off*, word*

awareness, comprehension, grasp, idea, intellect, intelligence, judgment, ken, knowledge, notion, perception, perspicacity, thought

Quote

And this is what you keep claiming, but never prove. Going to school makes a person EDUCATED, but has nothing to do with intelligence.

Education leads to knowledge, knowledge is a key to intelligence.

Quote

Sure as soon as you answer the questions asked of you. Intelligence is ABILITY to understand concepts, not the ability to recite what you read or heard.

Genetic intelligence is the template to learn and comprehend information, but w/o education it is a blank template. Some people’s template is well-constructed, others are less well-constructed, but either way, they both need programming via education/introduction of knowledge.

Now answer this: “Do me a favor and at least support your argument against #1. Where do intelligent people come from?” I’ll repost the cite from earlier:

http://encarta.msn.com/..._6/Intelligence.html

If genetic influences account for between 40 and 80 percent of the variation in intelligence, then environmental influences account for between 20 and 60 percent of the total variation. Environmental factors comprise all the stimuli a person encounters from conception to death, including food, cultural information, education, and social experiences.

There ya go, now just tell me where intelligent people come from? Do they come from the hills of Kentucky having never been into a classroom, or the halls of Stanford?

[DaVinci 0]

Never mind. You have said that enilisted people are dumber than college students over and over in this tread and in others.

You choose to make statements and not offer any proof of them. Then you weasle out of offering proof saying you don't agree with the concept of "proof"

Just like you said you were smarter than GQ, then later claimed you never said that. I see no need to continue this since you will provide no proof to back your ideas.

[Lucky... 0]

Right here:

This is probably the best way to summarize it:

http://encarta.msn.com/..._6/Intelligence.html

If genetic influences account for between 40 and 80 percent of the variation in intelligence, then environmental influences account for between 20 and 60 percent of the total variation. Environmental factors comprise all the stimuli a person encounters from conception to death, including food, cultural information, education, and social experiences.

See, environmental influences. This means, in large part, education. Education influences intelligence. Some Ph.D's think genetics are far predominant and others think environmental factors weigh more heavily.

Point is, education is a huge part of intelligence.

[matthewcline 0]

This is probably your best attempt at explaining your thought process clearly.

I would agree with you in your choices.

After all the two groups you use for your example are better EDUCATED in the field your going to apply them too. Both groups would also be SMART enough to know that at the time of your decision.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You choose to make statements and not offer any proof of them. Then you weasle out of offering proof saying you don't agree with the concept of "proof"

What I wrote was that scientifically, proof is a utopian word and they they support their theories, not offer them as proof.

I have supported my position very well. The DOD site that people have read, is now apparently down. It established a 1998 and a 2004 data that 17% of enlisted troops had college, whereas 45-47% of their civilian counterparts had higher education.

As the post above establishes, education is a large part of intelligence.

Quote

Just like you said you were smarter than GQ, then later claimed you never said that.

Please go find that for me.

Quote

I see no need to continue this since you will provide no proof to back your ideas.

Now that I have determined a connection between education and intelligence, you want no part. I understand.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

This is probably your best attempt at explaining your thought process clearly.

I would agree with you in your choices.

After all the two groups you use for your example are better EDUCATED in the field your going to apply them too. Both groups would also be SMART enough to know that at the time of your decision.

Thx, probably true. I usually do tons of research to have these guys opt out of the argument, this is no exception as with you know who.

Quote

I would agree with you in your choices.

Which choices? Sorry bro, I do so much writing I;m not sure what you refer to.

Quote

After all the two groups you use for your example are better EDUCATED in the field your going to apply them too. Both groups would also be SMART enough to know that at the time of your decision.

Which 2 groups?

As an aside, I would like to say that enlisted folks are better disciplined and probably make better college students after leaving the military than the guy living with mom in his early-mid 20's. I think being in the military makes it very difficult to attend college. I know in my job I could never have done it.

So military people aren't inherently dumb, they are people who are less intelligent at the time of service but have plenty of potential to excell after serving.

People who are more intelligent, as an average, choose college over enlisting.

[matthewcline 0]

I responded to a specific post you made. I agreed with you, but do not think it actually supports your argument. It was a jaded skew of an example, kind of like manipulating data to get the results you want.

Then you go back to the tired old college kids are smarter than enlisted kids argument.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I responded to a specific post you made. I agreed with you, but do not think it actually supports your argument. It was a jaded skew of an example, kind of like manipulating data to get the results you want.

Then you go back to the tired old college kids are smarter than enlisted kids argument.

Honestly, please make an argument. Can you see why I feel my point stands? I posted DOD sites that people ignored excpet for a few. The one to respond said the data was wrong. Geez folks, I supply DOD data, how much more neutral or leaning to the troops can that be?

Please, post my assertion, then create an argument againts it.

[Lucky... 0]

Just curius what your take is on this. With an Ma in psychology, I would think you could really shed some light here:


http://encarta.msn.com/..._6/Intelligence.html

If genetic influences account for between 40 and 80 percent of the variation in intelligence, then environmental influences account for between 20 and 60 percent of the total variation. Environmental factors comprise all the stimuli a person encounters from conception to death, including food, cultural information, education, and social experiences.

See, environmental influences. This means, in large part, education. Education influences intelligence. Some Ph.D's think genetics are far predominant and others think environmental factors weigh more heavily.

Point is, education is a huge part of intelligence.

[Lindsey 0]

One would expect to see a persons IQ score change through the years if a person had no educational exposure at all through his/her childhood, but with typical educational exposure one would not expect a significant change in test scores. Any instrument that tests intelligence that showed a significant difference from childhood through adolescence and into adulthood (barring extraordinary events--i.e. trauma) would simply be considered an unreliable test and not used.

The testing instruments that we DO use, like the Wechsler scales that test people from childhood through early adulthood, have both performance and verbal scales. The verbal scales are more affected by education than the performance scales, but even then, people's scores are very, very stable through the years.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[DaVinci 0]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just like you said you were smarter than GQ, then later claimed you never said that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Please go find that for me.

Quote

"Don't take it personally or as an insult. You will understand if/when you graduate."

"Intellectually, you are likely a way below me or the average college grad."

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2516964#2516964

There ya go..."Intellectually, you are likely a way below me"

Quote

The DOD site that people have read, is now apparently down. It established a 1998 and a 2004 data that 17% of enlisted troops had college, whereas 45-47% of their civilian counterparts had higher education.

That only proves that people who didn't go to the Army some went to school. That proves EDUCATION, but your own numbers show education is less than HALF of intelligence..As low as 20%.

Yet you make some really big assumptions yet state them as proof, then claim to not believe in proof when you can't find any.

Quote

Now that I have determined a connection between education and intelligence, you want no part. I understand.

Your OWN sources show that education is less then HALF. But you claim that education is the lions share.

Really, get some proof of your wazzo claims or don't bother to answer me.

If you had said, that GIS are less EDUCATED, you would get no argument since your evidence shows that. It is when you make the BS jump to INTELLIGENCE that your theory falls to shit, and you cannot prove anything.

Of course you claim no proof is needed.

Really, bring proof of INTELLIGENCE, not some wazzo illogical falicy to support your theory.

ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY or FALSE ANALOGY.
An unsound form of inductive argument in which an argument is based completely or relies heavily on analogy to prove its point.

Quote

People who are more intelligent, as an average, choose college over enlisting.

Have any proof of that? Or just talking?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

One would expect to see a persons IQ score change through the years if a person had no educational exposure at all through his/her childhood, but with typical educational exposure one would not expect a significant change in test scores. Any instrument that tests intelligence that showed a significant difference from childhood through adolescence and into adulthood (barring extraordinary events--i.e. trauma) would simply be considered an unreliable test and not used.

The testing instruments that we DO use, like the Wechsler scales that test people from childhood through early adulthood, have both performance and verbal scales. The verbal scales are more affected by education than the performance scales, but even then, people's scores are very, very stable through the years.

linz

I agree that IQ remain constant given an average person's education and exposure. But what I am saying is that education affects imtelligence and that people, after graduating high school or dropping out, tend to follow a path of probability. Those who are inclined to score higher grades tend to go to college and those who drop out, get their GED or marginally graduate high school likely tend to go to the military or get a menial job and stay home. Thus, people of higher intelligence tend to go to college rather than enlist.

I think people who get a job at McDonald's after high school are of lower intelligence than those that go to college as well. People usually don't just fall into college, they have to show intellectual motivation. The ASVAB and application at McDonald's are far easier.

Anyway, I posted how education is a healthy component of intelligence, won't someone comment?

[Lindsey 0]

Anyway, I posted how education is a healthy component of intelligence, won't someone comment?

Again, in the field of psychology, education and intelligence are 2 different entities. Testing for intelligence is somewhat confounded by education though.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Lucky... 0]

"Don't take it personally or as an insult. You will understand if/when you graduate."

"Intellectually, you are likely a way below me or the average college grad."

http://www.dropzone.com/...post=2516964#2516964


Great, the context is that I am a middle aged man, been in the military, graduated college/univ., and am ½ way thru another degree; do you really think I am not more educated and more intelligent? If we took the same test on general knowledge, do you think a 18-20yo person, military or not would score anywhere near me? Now, if we roll the clock back to when I was 18-20 he could very well have scored higher at his current age. Same time, if he tested with a raw score, not adjusted for age as with an IQ, do you think he would be more intellectual or the college grad?

That only proves that people who didn't go to the Army some went to school. That proves EDUCATION, but your own numbers show education is less than HALF of intelligence..As low as 20%.

Oh, so now you concede 20%. Why live at the bottom, the site stated 20-60%, let’s pick 40 as a reasonable number. So on average, 40% of a person’s intelligence comes from environmental factors, including education. OK, so education does play a large role in a person’s intelligence; glad we agree.

Yet you make some really big assumptions yet state them as proof, then claim to not believe in proof when you can't find any.

I don’t believe in proof, period. Be it my ‘proof’ which I don’t refer to evidence that way, or other’s so-called proof. I do provide all kinds of evidence, the correlation between education and intelligence, the increase in the number of Class IV recruits, recruits with criminal records, and evidence that civilian kids attend college at almost 3 times the rate. Then you say, ‘so what, what does that prove.’ I could give you a notarized statement from Congress that enlistees aren’t as intelligent as college kids and you would still argue it.

Your OWN sources show that education is less then HALF. But you claim that education is the lions share.

20% to 60%…..I believe that is 40% on average, possibly more than half; either way very substantial. Where did I write that it is more than half (lion’s share)?

Really, get some proof of your wazzo claims or don't bother to answer me.

Deduction time:

- Education is between 20% and 60% contributory toward a person’s intellect.
- Civilians attend college at 3 times the rate that active military enlistees do.
- Conclusion: College kids are more intelligent as an average than that of their enlisted counterparts.

You’ll still argue that without any substance of your own.

If you had said, that GIS are less EDUCATED, you would get no argument since your evidence shows that. It is when you make the BS jump to INTELLIGENCE that your theory falls to shit, and you cannot prove anything.

But when I establish that 20-60% of a person’s intelligence is gained from their environment, I do support the claim that education is paramount to intelligence.

Really, bring proof of INTELLIGENCE, not some wazzo illogical falicy to support your theory.

I brought evidence that supports my claim. I refuse to use the word, “proof,” as there is no absolute like that. Impeach my supporting evidence.

ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY or FALSE ANALOGY.
An unsound form of inductive argument in which an argument is based completely or relies heavily on analogy to prove its point.

Where did I use an analogy? I used two very credible sources, DOD and MSN Encarta. Your reference is off the wall and doesn’t apply to this thread.

Have any proof of that? Or just talking?

By the rate of college attendance with enlistees. You could argue that straight A high schoolers enlist, and I doubt there is data that tracks enlistees HS GPA, so I;m going to deduce that based upon the data in the DOD site of college attendance.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Anyway, I posted how education is a healthy component of intelligence, won't someone comment?

Again, in the field of psychology, education and intelligence are 2 different entities. Testing for intelligence is somewhat confounded by education though.

linz

So you're disagreeing with the MSN Encarta site that claimed 20-60% of intelligence is atributed to environmental factors, diet, education, etc....?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Anyway, I posted how education is a healthy component of intelligence, won't someone comment?

Again, in the field of psychology, education and intelligence are 2 different entities. Testing for intelligence is somewhat confounded by education though.

linz

Again, I'm not saying enlisted folks are born stupid-asses. Not implying in the least. But Linz, do you think ther honor grad is looking at a scholarship or the recruiter? Now going to OCS is one thing, but to enlist? Hardly. There are lots of averagely smart enlisted folks, but the more educated, hence more intelligent kids got to OCS or college.

[Lindsey 0]

I think that some environmental factors (exposures to brain-toxic substances...i.e. lead; some congenital anomalies due to in utero exposures; malnutrition; and maybe things like complete lack of nurturing as an infant and young child) impact intelligence. Some environmental factors (quality of education) impact intelligence test scores to a much greater degree than they impact intelligence.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Lindsey 0]

Again, I'm not saying enlisted folks are born stupid-asses. Not implying in the least. But Linz, do you think ther honor grad is looking at a scholarship or the recruiter? Now going to OCS is one thing, but to enlist? Hardly. There are lots of averagely smart enlisted folks, but the more educated, hence more intelligent kids got to OCS or college.

I think you're probably right about the folks at the very tops of their classes in h.s. They're probably more likely to go to college. After you move beyond those top few spots, though, I think going to college vs military has more to do with values of the individual and his/her family, ability to pay for college and desire to get help with the cost by going to the military first, and maybe uncertainty about what the person wants to do with his/her life.

I'm also not convinced that rank order in H.S. correlates adequately enough with intelligence to look at one as evidence for the other. It makes some sense that there would be a correlation, but how many times have you seen it happen that things just don't play out like you'd expect them to. This just may be one of those instances. There are a lot of variables involved in educational success besides basic intelligence.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Amazon 7]

Quote

There are a lot of variables involved in educational success besides basic intelligence.

Never undersetimate the power of those who are good at kissing ass to succeed in school.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Great, the context is that I am a middle aged man, been in the military, graduated college/univ., and am ½ way thru another degree

Yet you claim to be poor? Earlier you claimed that the ability to earn a living was sign of intelligence.

Quote

do you really think I am not more educated and more intelligent?

Educated, sure...Intelligent, no. You refuse to think of those two as seperate even though your OWN sources say they are.

Quote

So on average, 40% of a person’s intelligence comes from environmental factors, including education. OK, so education does play a large role in a person’s intelligence; glad we agree.

So go with 40%...Thats 40% of ENVIRONMENTAL factors, not just education. You take small numbers and try to make them fit your whole argument. Environmental factors include how much your parents made you do homework or if you ate lead paint.

So you cannot claim that education is the only factor even IN environmental factors, much less the whole pie.

Quote

I could give you a notarized statement from Congress that enlistees aren’t as intelligent as college kids and you would still argue it.

No, cause that would be some evidence not some theory you spout.

Like I said, wanna claim that college kids are more educated? Great, I would agree. But you want to claim they are more intelligent.

So my question is this, when does the college kid become more intelligent (assuming two HS grads)? The second he steps into school? Are you willing to discount any lessons learned in the military in favor of finding out how to find the mean of a bunch of numbers?

Quote

Deduction time:

Her is where you go off the chart every time.

Quote

- Education is between 20% and 60% contributory toward a person’s intellect.

WRONG, by your own statements ENVIRONMENTAL factors that education is just ONE part, not the whole. The lessons learned in Boot Camp could also be considered ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS...But you discount anything but school. This is where your house of cards starts to fall.

Quote

- Civilians attend college at 3 times the rate that active military enlistees do.

And that proves nothing other than they GO to school. It does not show how many cruze through and make a major of smoking dope and eating cupcakes. It also does not take into consideration parents desires, or financial considerations.

Quote

- Conclusion: College kids are more intelligent as an average than that of their enlisted counterparts.

And that is just nothing you can prove. You use wazzo math to come up with a conclusion you can't prove...That is the logical fallicy I mentioned.

ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY or FALSE ANALOGY.
An unsound form of inductive argument in which an argument is based completely or relies heavily on analogy to prove its point.

Really drop the false analogies.

X does not equal Z just cause you want it to.

Environmental factors includes more than just education.

Quote

Environmental factors play a major role in determining IQ in extreme situations. Proper childhood nutrition appears critical for cognitive development; malnutrition can lower IQ. Other research indicates environmental factors such as prenatal exposure to toxins, duration of breastfeeding, and micronutrient deficiency can affect IQ. In the developed world, there are some family effects on the IQ of children, accounting for up to a quarter of the variance. However, by adulthood, this correlation disappears, so that the IQ of adults living in the prevailing conditions of the developed world may be more heritable.

Nearly all personality traits show that, contrary to expectations, environmental effects actually cause adoptive siblings raised in the same family to be as different as children raised in different families (Harris, 1998; Plomin & Daniels, 1987). Put another way, shared environmental variation for personality is zero, and all environmental effects would be nonshared. Conversely, IQ is actually an exception to this, at least among children. The IQs of adoptive siblings, who share no genetic relation but do share a common family environment, are correlated at .32. Despite attempts to isolate them, the factors that cause adoptive siblings to be similar have not been identified. However, as explained below, shared family effects on IQ disappear after adolescence.

Active genotype-environment correlation, also called the "nature of nurture", is observed for IQ. This phenomenon is measured similarly to heritability; but instead of measuring variation in IQ due to genes, variation in environment due to genes is determined. One study found that 40% of variation in measures of home environment are accounted for by genetic variation. This suggests that the way human beings craft their environment is due in part to genetic influences.

[Skysurfer_Rob 0]

Eight pages of argument to read through is tiring.

Anyways...here is my opinion, if anyone feels like reading it.

Describing those that go straight into college as "more intelligent" is wording it incorrectly. Yes, they may be more "formally educated", but there is another side of intelligence that cannot be measured by any test, and that would be common sense.

I have known many to go straight into college, and many that have joined the military first. The ones who have gone off to college were on average, more formally educated...more book smarts, than common sense. Those that have joined the military have had, on average, more common sense than book smarts.

This argument about who is more intelligent is null and void. The military as a whole is more of a "common sense, know what you need to know to get the mission completed" system. The civilian education system is a "know what colleges think you should know, to prove you are smart enough to do the job civilian employers want."

In the end IQ/SAT scores are just numbers that may or may not represent an individual or groups intelligence. It is up to that individual or group to prove their intelligence through acts as an individual or unit.

(In regards to a much earlier post by busaunit; he said to ask the military why we believe we are here in Iraq. If we answer to fight for freedom of Iraqi people, we are not, and if we fight for American Buisness, we are smart...I suggest that you not make such an unintelligent remark. We fight because we are told to fight. Most of us joined the military believing we would be defending our country from foreign and domestic threats. We may now be in a war that some of us don't believe in...but we are still here to defend our country when called upon to do so. I will gladly serve my country, whether it's in Iraq or at home, whenever I'm called upon; this does not make me unintelligent.)

"Though I Fly Through the Valley of Death, I Shall Fear No Evil...For I am at 80,000 Feet and Climbing."
SR-71 hangar entrance sign at Kadena AFB, Japan

[TheAnvil 0]

Nope. Links don't work, and if they did, they'd undoubtedly have some statistics tangential to the topic that you've misinterpreted.

Utter failure. Again.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!