PDA

View Full Version : Intelligent soldiers most likely to die in battle



Beorn
05-17-2009, 06:49 PM
Intelligent soldiers most likely to die in battle


http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn16297/dn16297-1_300.jpg


Being dumb has its benefits. Scottish soldiers who survived the second world war were less intelligent than men who gave their lives defeating the Third Reich, a new study of British government records concludes.
The 491 Scots who died and had taken IQ tests at age 11 achieved an average IQ score of 100.8. Several thousand survivors who had taken the same test - which was administered to all Scottish children born in 1921 – averaged 97.4.

The unprecedented demands of the second world war – fought more with brains than with brawn compared with previous wars - might account for the skew, says Ian Deary (http://www.psy.ed.ac.uk/people/iand/), a psychologist at the University of Edinburgh, who led the study. Dozens of other studies have shown that smart people normally live longer than their less intelligent peers.
"We wonder whether more skilled men were required at the front line, as warfare became more technical," Dear says.

His team's study melds records from Scottish army units with results of national tests performed by all 11-year-olds in 1932. The tests assessed verbal reasoning, mathematics and spatial skills.
"No other country has ever done such a whole-population test of the mental ability of its population," Deary says. Other studies have found that childhood IQs accurately predict intelligence later in life.

Equal intelligence

A previous study found a fall in intelligence among Scottish men after the war, and at the time Deary's team theorised that less intelligent men were more likely to be rejected for military service. The new study appears to refute that suggestion. Men who didn't serve were more intelligent than surviving veterans, and of equal intelligence to those who died.

Analysing their data by rank offers some insight. Low-ranking soldiers accounted for three-fifths of all deaths, and their IQs measured by their childhood tests averaged 95.3. Officers and non-commissioned officers made up for about 7% and 20% of war deaths respectively. Officers scored 121.9, bringing up the average IQ for those who died. Non-commissioned officers scored an average of 106.7.

"We also wondered whether there was an overall small tendency for more intelligent soldiers to want to do the job well, perhaps meaning they ended up in more threatening situations," Deary says.
Phil Batterham (http://cmhr.anu.edu.au/people/staff.php#Batterham), an epidemiologist at Australian National University in Canberra, wonders what aspects of intelligence made soldiers more likely to die in the war. "One could hypothesise that the association between greater intelligence and higher war-related mortality might be driven by the more crystallised verbal abilities, leading to greater leadership roles," as opposed to other forms of intelligence, he says.

Journal reference: Intelligence (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.11.003) (DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2008.11.003)
Source (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16297)

Psychonaut
05-17-2009, 06:55 PM
I've got two things to add. A decrease in overall intelligence could also easily have been affected by the fact that the single most common injury for soldiers since WWI is a mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI). Simply being near an exploding shell is enough for the shockwaves to shake your brain around inside your skull and knock off a few IQ points. Also, thankfully, in today's military technical and intelligence based jobs are being pushed progressively further from the front lines. So, what was true about technological progress in the world wars is now not so true thanks to advances in communications and remote control technologies.

Agrippa
05-24-2009, 10:51 AM
Actually its old news, because we know for quite some time that all mass wars were contraselective, resulted in negative selective pressures which made a population less intelligent, less mature, less progressive as a rule of thumb without balancing cultural mechanisms (Eugenic).

Usually in mass wars young officers have a very high death rate, while being definitely on average more inteligent-progressive-leptomorphic. Also special units and front soldiers, usually the more dedicated and idealistic people, have higher death rates.

Also, one could speculate about another factor, which goes in a wholly different direction, namely that intelligent people are more often introverted and nervous, therefore these also could be hit more often than rather calm, indifferent and tenacious people, like we can find them f.e. in some mesomorphic/athletic boxers and which seems to be correlate with lower intellect as well.

Another interpretation in the very modern context is, that more intelligent people have more choice, so many intelligent and higher social level people which participate at their own will in a war will be very dedicated - and will die first, while those which are not dedicated "to the cause of the war", will avoid the front if possible.

So in the end we can say, the highest losses will be of idealistic, dedicated and intelligent people of rather nervous character in most modern wars - with the "nervous" being the most speculative part.

In any case a highly contraselective mechanism, but as I said, nothing new and well known, from the constant degeneration since tribal times in most civilisations.

Brännvin
05-30-2009, 11:15 PM
I read the study several months ago, it has emphasized that the more intelligent tend to be selected to be officers and NCO's. Junior leaders have to risk their lives in battle a lot more often than other ranks, and it is usually them who are more intelligent, always assuming the position of command and risk.

Ordinary soldiers are those who always follow the orders, true they are the more numerous, always at risk of life but the chances of their survival is greater than an intelligent young officer as Agrippa pointed out.