Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (441573)	12/20/2008 9:51:57 AM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1574373

Intelligent soldiers most likely to die in battle 11:57 19 December 2008 by Ewen Callaway newscientist.com For similar stories, visit the The Human Brain and Death Topic Guides 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, 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, 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 (DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2008.11.003)

To: i-node who wrote (441573)	12/20/2008 9:59:10 AM
From: bentway	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574373

Wrong, as per usual for a pompous clown with his head up his partisan ass. john1701a.com "Late 2002 Toyota announced they were now making a profit from the sale of each Prius. The success of hybrids had now become apparent."

To: i-node who wrote (441573)	12/20/2008 2:55:03 PM
From: tejek	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574373

They don't need new vehicles; that isn't the problem. The problem is they cannot make money on the ones they are already selling because the labor costs are too high. I don't know why, when people who are smarter than you and without liberal dogma continue to explain this to you, you don't just listen. That would avoid the need to repeat, over and over, the same things. You know for someone who is wrong as much as you are, you have an awfully high opinion of yourself. The truth is.....GM made money up until 2006 when oil/gas prices starting going throught the roof. That's when they began to lose sales to their competitors because they did not have a lineup of fuel efficient cars. Elitists like yourself are so quick to jump on the anti labor union bandwagon or any bandwagon that fits your ideology. Its your fatal flaw......its why you make so many errors of judgments and get so many things wrong. Why can't you all learn from your mistakes?