The Armed Forces of the United States has been studying the IQ’s of potential soldiers for many years. They’ve been in the forefront of intelligence research since WWI. I’ve known it as the AFQT test (Armed Forces Qualification Test). There may be different ones now, but for ions, they’ve been testing to either qualify or eliminate people based on these tests.
They test to be able to create a strata of groups, the lower for less complicated and the higher for officer material. This is done because these are life and death issues. War or possibility of war will do that. They were motivated to understand IQ and how it equates to positions in the Armed Forces.
When not in war situations, the Armed Forces are still compelled in recruiting people, to keep their pool at proper levels. These recruitment practices also allowed people in the lower classes an opportunity to learn new skills and then be elevated to higher ranks, responsibilities, and leadership. They were skills taught through this training mechanism, that had real life value to its members, once they were done with their designated hitch. They had transferable skills to jump into middle class jobs upon leaving.
So this training mechanism was good for both the Armed Forces and for people looking to learn skills. So as people joined they tested and the Armed Forces were able to figure out who was qualified for any specific job or duty. They’ve been doing it for 100 years. But they ran into issues. They determined and concluded that someone with an IQ of lower than 83 did not qualify for any position. There was no positions at any level that they felt they could train someone for. At an IQ of 83, comprehension, abstract thinking, following directions, and basic interpersonal skills, are extremely limited. They simply can’t be trained to do anything.
So I think everyone can understand that. I think we can also come to the conclusion that military personnel are a microcosm of a broader society. That is that they are representative of all of us and is a reasonable proposition.
So something that has societal, and perhaps political relevance is that there are profound and virtually irremediable differences in peoples cognitive performance, whether we want to admit it or not. They also have a very biological and heritable base. No one wants to hear that it’s irremediable, permanent, biological, or hereditary, and that it has a societal consequence. There is a cognitive strata of today’s society.
Now those on the left want to believe that everyone’s the same and you can train anyone to do everything, and those on the right want to believe that if they just got off their ass and look for a job there’s a position for them.
So most of this is probably not news to everyone. What is the news though, is the average number of people in the world that have IQ’s 83 or lower. Would 45% shock you. Now you have to remember, there are heredity and biological factors in play. IQ can’t change to something higher by studying. It’s basically froze in they DNA’s capability. In the United States that’s figure is 15% with an IQ lower than 83. They are virtually unemployable.
Finally, as we move up the IQ hierarchy, we find increasingly more complex employment duties. I don’t want to necessarily go into the what professions or jobs for a given range because that becomes more subjective. But those within 10 points of that 83 are above the threshold for normal independent functioning. That can perform routine tasks as long as there are no moments where one has to make a decision. They are also much more susceptible to persuasion and their insights and decisions are mostly shaped by others. This is 35% of the population.
So before I mentioned, that IQ has a societal and perhaps political relevance. How so? Well those who have IQ’s below 95 are much more easily influenced by others. In this case, the mainstream media has a huge influence on shaping political landscape. It’s no surprise that in many polls of people in Television and Newspaper, a large proportion of journalists lean much more predominantly to the left. In fact, some say almost to the point of being a collusion. Notwithstanding, there are many on the right that follow a specific news network because they tend to be more to the right.
But proportionally, if 80% of Hollywood, television news, radio, and the mainstream news is left leaning, wouldn’t that then lead to the conclusion that people who are the most easily persuaded and led to believe the left leaning news be from the left? Why do you think you hear news in easy to digest soundbites? Why is there no analysis that represent both sides of issues? Why has news degraded to what it has become? Why has it become nothing more that the propaganda mouthpiece of the left? It’s to influence those 35%.
Of those 35% who do you think they predominately vote for? Yup, the left.