Bushranger

The thread is about I.Q.s and/or intelligence required to enter the military and/or become a doctor. Your post, which may or may not be true, seemingly has deviated from the issues and become (in your mind), become a psychological and a moral issue.

Although I was in the military in the early sixties, and certain jobs had higher I.Q. requirements, I don't know why that would have changed. Therefore, not all jobs (MOS's) in the military would be open to hose with "weaker I.Q.'s". Also, what do you mean by a "normal iq"? 100 is average. If you have a high I.Q. (130 or higher), and you associated with persons with 100 (or thereabouts) I.Q.'s you would become aware (vocabulary, intestes, etc.) that a person with a 100 is not all that intelligent. When it comes to scientists and such as medical doctors, a person with a "normal" I.Q. (i.e., 100) is unlikely to achieve such. For instance, look at the bottom entires on this chart: https://www.quora.com/What-are-good-jobs-for-people-with-a-90-98-IQ-Am-I-hopeless

Nevertheless, from the perspective of the Army using an I.Q. test to qualify persons to enter Officer Candidate School, it would be a purely pragmatic way of doing so in that they do not want the blind, those who cannot read/write English nor those who have not used a pen (actually a number 2 pencil), before.

Michigan. All the fire escapes were switched out to the tube types in all the schools in my home town of Ludington, MI. They all stopped working shortly after they were installed. At first we shot through them at a dangerous speed...a teacher would stand about eight feet away from the opening and grab the kids to keep them from falling. They got slower and slower until the kids had to "scoot" down them using their feet to descend. You can see the tube in the photo I have attached. That is a plicture of my grade school in the fifties, "Pere Marquette School", in Ludington, Mi.

When I was a kid, there was a big move to replace steel fire escape open stairs on schools with a metal tube-slide. They worked fine for awhile, but all to shortly, they lost their slipperiness, would not longer work as a slide...kids would get stuck, therefore they lost their function and were abandoned. As an adult who learned about metallurgy, I attributed the loss of function to the fact that they were constructed from Aluminum and once the protective wax (an assumption it was a wax), wore off, the Aluminum quickly formed its Oxide resulting in a microscopic layer of Aluminum Oxide... which is an abrasive due to the sharp crystalline edges. However, someone claims that the tubes were not Aluminum, but were Stainless Steel. I have performed internet searches to find what metal they were made of, with negative results. Can anyone attest as to which metal they were actually made of?

Your answer does not make sense to me. If a big portion of the hull is out of the water, its design is moot as to slowing it down in air.

WWII era subs used diesels on the surface and attained faster speeds than when switched to electric motors while submerged. However, modern atomic powered subs attain higher speeds while travelling submerged than on the surface. This seems counterintuitive in that more of the hull is in contact with the water and therefore more friction with the water than when on the surface. So my question is, how/by what mechanism do submerged submarines travel at higher speeds than while on the surface?

I doubt if medical schools administer an I.Q. test, in that how well a person performed in undergrad school would be a more useful predictor of how well they would be expected to perform in medical school. However, at one time (I do not know if they still do), the U.S. Army administered a General Technical test (A.K.A., and I.Q. test) and it was used to qualify or disqualify certain advanced individual training (AIT) schools, and as I posted earlier, that score was used to qualify/disqualify recruits for Officer Candidate School (OCS)...I know that from my personal experience in the Army, albeit a long, long time ago. Some jobs (Military Occupational Specialty, "MOS") were menial and did not require a great deal of intelligence. Other MOSs were considered to require more intelligence. The GT scores were more or less the exact score as when a person was scored on an I.Q.test. People may want to dance around with what I.Q. tests were invented for and what they really measure and what other measures are more legitimate, but in regard to the original poster's question, the truth of the matter is the Army did use I.Q. tests and it would require more than an "average" I.Q. Non Sequitur.

I.Q. test scores are the accepted default measure of intelligence in our society. The "average" I.Q. is 100 points. I was in the the position to get to know people and then look at their I.Q. scores in their records. A person with an average (100 points), was pretty much a dullard who would not likely be able to pass chemistry (inorganic and organic), anatomy, physiology, psychology, along "wiMathematics required for a doctor are college algebra, trigonometry, calculus, linear algebra, statistics & probility.th: " The 100 I.Q. people I knew would only be able to handle arithmetic. A dentist is a doctor...a doctor of dentistry (DDS).

This begs the question: How intelligent does a person have to be to become a doctor? Please define "stupid". The word is used primarily as an insult and is ambiguous. What I.Q. score do you think a person would have to have to successfully negotiate all the classes that are required for a doctoral degree in medicine?

At one time (early sixties when I joined the army), you were given a General Technical (GT) test. It was essentially an I.Q. test. It was used to qualify enlisted men as to what jobs and or training they would qualify for. For instance in order to become a Neuro-psychiatric Technician, one had to have a minimum GT score of 120 (if I remember correctly). Likewise, those of us who scored high enough were interviewed about attending Officer Candidate School (OCS), with the intention of becoming an officer. I do not remember how high a score was required for OCS, but when they told me that I would have to lengthen my enlistment from 3 years to 6 years, I opted out. People with an I.Q. score of 100 are considered of average intelligence...90 would be considered mentally handicapped. Even an I.Q. score of 100 is not all that high. I would assume, but only guessing on this based on my experiences, that to become a medical doctor, due to the rigorous college science classes, I would estimate a minimum of an I.Q. score of 135 (considered gifted), would likely be required to master the requisite curriculum.

Yes, I understand that the domestic dog is descended from the grey wolf. What seems counter intuitive is the close resemblance of the African Hunting Dog to the domestic dog given the more distant connection. My instincts tell me that they should not look so much alike. So much for my instincts. I was hoping for some recent DNA studies of the Hunting Dogs.

I grew up (pre-DNA knowledge), when scientists claimed that the domestic dog was a direct descendant of the grey wolf. However, at the same time, they were sure that the Giant Panda was as was also the Red Panda, more closely related to Raccoons that Bears. However, as I understand it, DNA has how shown that Giant and Red Pandas are not related but that Red Pandas are related to Raccoons (as thought even previous to DNA) but the Giant Pandas are related to Bears. Which brings me to dogs. Given that the African Hunting Dog, AKA, Painted Dog resembles the domestic dog way more than it seems the Grey Wolf does, has there been any DNA studies confirming that the Domestic Dog indeed evolved directly from the Grey Wolf and that the African Hunting Dog had a different acesstor and is not really a "dog" at all?

Religion is not necessary for the basis for ethical behavior. Pragmatism provides that. The vaunted "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", which is often claimed by christians while ignoring virtually the same statement via other and older religions, is but a pragmatic adaptation in any society that would provide for ethical behavior. I will not steal from you as you should not steal from me...I will not kill you as you should not kill me, etc.

It is a common event to be watching a fictional event where the medical person/EMT/Doctor/Nurse tells the patient to stay awake when they are bleeding to death. Question: Does that really make any difference? It seems logical that the point where there is not enough blood left to support life is the point where the body will die whether or not the person is awake or not. So, is it just theater, or not? If it is a factor, please explain the biological means/reason that it would prevent death.

As I suspected..."...Use hot water..." is a platitude passed along as fact when it is not... like so many other things in our, average I.Q =100 society.

I frequently see the signs in restrooms, "Employees must wash their hands with hot water and soap before returning to work.", which for me begs the question: Given that germs are not likely to be killed by the relatively tepid temperature that a human's hands can withstand, why use hot water versus cold water? Is there any scientific reason the hot water and soap will be more effective in removing germs than cold water and soap?

Thanks, guys...now I understand.

I still do not understand. If the satellites are lined up with the earth's equator do they follow the seasonal tilting of the earth, and why would they follow the earth's tilt? Gravity? It seems counterintuitive to me that gravity could pull them along with the seasonal tilting.

A very basic question...How do geosynchronous satellites maintain their position in regard to the earth's continuous seasonal shift? For instance, if a geosynchronous communication satellite (my HughesNet Network Provider for instance) is positioned above the equator, how does it maintain its alignment despite the seasonal tilting of the earth between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn? The alignment of my receiver dish and the satellite, I have been told is critical, so how does it compensate for seasonal changes in the earth's position relative to the satellite? It seems that the satellite would need to, at the minimum, rotate to maintain alignment...likely using thrusters. If they use thrusters, that would mean that eventually, the thrusters would run out of fuel/compressed gas, etc.

Without knowing what their I.Q. scores are, your estimate is just a guess and persons that you have estimated to have an I.Q. score "95" may just as well have an I.Q. score of 110 or more. A guess is a guess is a guess. The person whom which I have observed are those who had their I.Q. scores in their school records and/or those whose General Technical (G.T. the Army's I.Q. test), scores were made available to me in the Army. Also, "performance" in high school and college is not an indicator of what a person I.Q. score would be.

Would you mind listing some of those parameters?

How was it that you happened to know that the people you are referring to had I.Q.s of 95? An estimation or did you have access to their I.Q. test scores?

When I read about the question of, if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe it causes me to consider: What exactly is the measure of "intelligent life". The resultant scores on I.Q. tests of humans is usually represented as a bell-shaped normal distribution with the mean (and I think mode), of the range being 100 points. As a former (retired) teacher, I have observed that a person with an I.Q. score of 100 will demonstrate little of what could be expected of an "intelligent" person despite being referred to as "average". Persons with 100 I.Qs will not likely rise to be mathematicians, rocket engineers, surgeons, etc... they will be manual workers doing simple repetitive things. On the other hand, Albert Einstein and Marilyn vos Savant with their superior I.Q.s are atypical and cannot logically be considered as representing human intelligence any more than could a person with a 40 I.Q. Therefore, we seem to be stuck with the "average" I.Q. as most legitimate measure of human intelligence rather than the noteable exceptions. That begs the question: Would a species from another world use the mean of human intelligence as the measure of such and then conclude that, there was no intelligent life on earth or at least that humans were only a moderately intelligent species?

Sharing my belief: I believe that it is more likely that the belief in God(s), is most likely a sociological construct rather than reality. Deep in the desert, amongst a homogenous population of muslims, there are few/no atheists...due to the sociological norms and frequent socially reinforced rituals, it would not likely occur to a person that God does not exist. On the other hand, a person living amongst diverse religions within a population, one can envision a person beginning to wonder if, first he may be practicing the "wrong" religion (or worshiping the "wrong" god), and then progressing to the point where he begins to consider that if a particular religion can be "wrong" , then all religions can be false and there may not be a God at all.