To join the military or be a doctor how high of IQ do you need?

[nec209]

To join the military or be a doctor how high of IQ do you need?

To go to medical school and do well in medical school how high of an IQ do you need? An IQ of at least 90? Any IQ lower than 90 and you will do really bad in school and have a really hard time in medical school at learning .

In the military if you IQ is too low you may cause problems than be a help.

As the case in the Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Endy0816]

There is no IQ test to worry about to join the military or become a doctor.

You can do fairly poorly on the Aptitude test(mil) and still get in. All kinds of different jobs needing done.

I think drafted troops was one of the main issues in Vietnam.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Endy0816

[koti]

11 hours ago, nec209 said:

To join the military or be a doctor how high of IQ do you need?

To go to medical school and do well in medical school how high of an IQ do you need? An IQ of at least 90? Any IQ lower than 90 and you will do really bad in school and have a really hard time in medical school at learning .

In the military if you IQ is too low you may cause problems than be a help.

As the case in the Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War.

You can have a very high IQ and be an idiot or an ahole - or both. On the other hand, you can have a low IQ and through perseverance/work/studying achieve much more than someone with a high IQ.

[Bushranger]

On 1/11/2019 at 12:59 PM, Endy0816 said:

 

 

On 1/11/2019 at 2:10 AM, nec209 said:

To join the military or be a doctor how high of IQ do you need?

To go to medical school and do well in medical school how high of an IQ do you need? An IQ of at least 90? Any IQ lower than 90 and you will do really bad in school and have a really hard time in medical school at learning .

In the military if you IQ is too low you may cause problems than be a help.

As the case in the Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War.

 

 

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.

[zapatos]

On 1/11/2019 at 1:10 AM, nec209 said:

To go to medical school and do well in medical school how high of an IQ do you need? An IQ of at least 90? Any IQ lower than 90 and you will do really bad in school and have a really hard time in medical school at learning .

I sincerely hope my doctor has an IQ higher than 90.

[Sensei]

Quote

To join the military or be a doctor how high of IQ do you need?

There are privates, corporals and there are higher ranked officers. Stupid and/or incompetent private, will hurt mostly himself/herself. Stupid and/or incompetent officer can cause death of large number of his/her soldiers.. Happened in history.. (e.g.  Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 A.D. or Battle of Stalingrad)

There are primary care physicians and there are surgeons. Stupid and/or incompetent primary physician could e.g. subscribe wrong drug, with wrong dosage, resulting in illness and/or death of patient. Stupid and/or incompetent surgeon will cut wrong organs.. Happened in history..

Edited January 14, 2019 by Sensei

[Prometheus]

5 hours ago, Bushranger said:

 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.

You don't need to be that intelligent to be a doctor, there are many other attributes required that are more important (professionalism, strong work ethic, confidence ). Many of the more intelligent doctors i know become frustrated at the lack of intellectual stimulation in medicine: they often go into research to get their fix. The reason you need such high qualifications to apply for med school is simply that they are massively over-subscribed programmes, and you may as select those with the very best grades. I also suspect it's a method to ensure private school kids have a secure job, but that's just the cynic in me.

[Bushranger]

Quote

You don't need to be that intelligent to be a doctor...

This begs the question:  How intelligent does a person have to be to become a doctor?

Quote

Stupid and/or incompetent primary physician...

Please define "stupid".   The word is used primarily as an insult and is ambiguous.

Quote

You don't need to be that intelligent to be a doctor...

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?

[StringJunky]

7 hours ago, Prometheus said:

You don't need to be that intelligent to be a doctor, there are many other attributes required that are more important (professionalism, strong work ethic, confidence ). Many of the more intelligent doctors i know become frustrated at the lack of intellectual stimulation in medicine: they often go into research to get their fix. The reason you need such high qualifications to apply for med school is simply that they are massively over-subscribed programmes, and you may as select those with the very best grades. I also suspect it's a method to ensure private school kids have a secure job, but that's just the cynic in me.

In the 70's you needed higher grades to get in to be a dentist than a doctor.  A friend of mine wanted to be one but  he wasn't a high-flyer at school which was necessary at the time.

Regarding the OP: if you can do what is asked, you are able enough.

Edited January 14, 2019 by StringJunky

[Prometheus]

9 minutes ago, Bushranger said:

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?

I'm not sure I.Q. is a useful metric, even assuming it measures 'raw' intelligence. I imagine someone around average intelligence with enough drive would finish. In UK hospitals they say getting into med school is the hardest part.

[Bushranger]

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.

42 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

In the 70's you needed higher grades to get in to be a dentist than a doctor.

A dentist is a doctor...a doctor of dentistry (DDS).

Edited January 14, 2019 by Bushranger

[StringJunky]

21 minutes ago, Bushranger said:

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).

IQ tests measure how good you are at doing IQ tests. IQ tests were developed for people with severe cognitive issues and the tests helped the concerned staff assess their needs. It told them where their patients have specific problems. They weren't designed to say how brilliant you are.

Edited January 14, 2019 by StringJunky

[Prometheus]

40 minutes ago, Bushranger said:

A person with an average (100 points),  was pretty much a dullard

The average person is not a dullard but average.

[John Cuthber]

It would be really nice to be able to say something like

"I think the question is meaningless.

The medical schools and army recruitment offices don't measure IQ (or, at least, I hope they don't) because it's not a measure of anything these employers are interested in.

IQ only measures how well you do in IQ tests.

No war was ever won, nor any patient cured by some soldier or doctor doing an IQ test."
But...

They do have a proxy measure for IQ, and they have  limits based on it.

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-U-S-military-have-a-minimum-IQ-requirement-for-entry

But, even that doesn't actually exclude any individual from joining- regardless of IQ

 

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

IQ tests measure how good you are at doing IQ tests. IQ tests were developed for people with severe cognitive issues and the tests helped the concerned staff assess their needs. It told them where their patients have specific problems. They weren't designed to say how brilliant you are.

The bolded part has to be emphasized as its use has been often misunderstood. It is not a comparative range of values but, in its modern iteration, basically normalizes the range of a population to a normal distribution. Typically high values are of little diagnostic value whereas scoring low can be the first indicator of some learning or other issues. As such a better question would be how low would be prohibitive. Also note that by definition 2/3 of the population fall within 15 of either side of the median.

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

The bolded part has to be emphasized. It is not a comparative range of values but, in its modern iteration, basically normalizes the range of a population to a normal distribution. Typically high values are of little diagnostic value whereas scoring low can be the first indicator of some learning or other issues. As such a better question would be how low would be prohibitive. Also note that by definition 2/3 of the population fall within 15 of either side of the median.

Right.

[Bushranger]

Quote

The medical schools and army recruitment offices don't measure IQ (or, at least, I hope they don't) because it's not a measure of anything these employers are interested in.

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. 

Quote

No war was ever won, nor any patient cured by some soldier or doctor doing an IQ test."

Non Sequitur.

 

Edited January 14, 2019 by Bushranger

[Sensei]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

IQ tests measure how good you are at doing IQ tests.

It's kinda like saying "1000 meters running exam is measure how good you are at running", or "push-up fitness exam is measure how good you are at push-ups".

I don't fully agree with it.

They can show general condition of organism.

If exactly the same test is given to group of people, it allows classifying them and objectively judge.

The problem with I.Q. tests is that there is no uniform I.Q. test for everybody. And on-line I.Q. tests were in majority made by people who created them just to earn money from ads (downgraded and uncontrolled quality of tests).

If somebody has problems with concentration, it'll be revealed on exam.

If somebody has problems with abstract thinking, it'll be revealed on exam.

Obviously the more somebody trains, no matter if it is push-ups, running, or intelligence tests, the better person is at such exams the next time. But if somebody learned how to solve tests, it means new connections in his/her brain were created, and such person better thinks abstractly. Brain training might be useful outside of just I.Q.tests, similar like training running is influencing human health, just in different area.

 

[John Cuthber]

12 minutes ago, Sensei said:

If exactly the same test is given to group of people, it allows classifying them and objectively judge.

Yes.

But what, exactly, does it let you judge?

For example, how well does it judge the intelligence of the dyslexic ones?

The blind ones?

Those for whom it's not in their first language?

Those who have never used a pen before?

In all those cases, what it measures is their ability to do an IQ test.
And, as you point out, that's partly down to practice rather than innate ability. 
 

So, what use is it?
Well, it doe a fair job of what it was originally intended for- but that's it.
 

14 minutes ago, Sensei said:

The problem with I.Q. tests is that there is no uniform I.Q. test for everybody.

There's this, which is pretty close
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford–Binet_Intelligence_Scales

But, obviously, it's not for everybody- not least because it's in English.
So, what it measures is...

how well you do in this test

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford–Binet_Intelligence_Scales

 

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Yes.

But what, exactly, does it let you judge?

For example, how well does it judge the intelligence of the dyslexic ones?

The blind ones?

Those for whom it's not in their first language?

Those who have never used a pen before?

In all those cases, what it measures is their ability to do an IQ test.
And, as you point out, that's partly down to practice rather than innate ability. 
 

The same could be said for Chemistry tests. Just how well does a chemistry test judge the chemistry knowledge of the dyslexic, blind, person who never used a pen, etc.

[StringJunky]

28 minutes ago, Sensei said:

It's kinda like saying "1000 meters running exam is measure how good you are at running", or "push-up fitness exam is measure how good you are at push-ups".

I don't fully agree with it.

They can show general condition of organism.

If exactly the same test is given to group of people, it allows classifying them and objectively judge.

The problem with I.Q. tests is that there is no uniform I.Q. test for everybody. And on-line I.Q. tests were in majority made by people who created them just to earn money from ads (downgraded and uncontrolled quality of tests).

If somebody has problems with concentration, it'll be revealed on exam.

If somebody has problems with abstract thinking, it'll be revealed on exam.

Obviously the more somebody trains, no matter if it is push-ups, running, or intelligence tests, the better person is at such exams the next time. But if somebody learned how to solve tests, it means new connections in his/her brain were created, and such person better thinks abstractly. Brain training might be useful outside of just I.Q.tests, similar like training running is influencing human health, just in different area.

 

As CharonY said:

Quote

Typically high values are of little diagnostic value whereas scoring low can be the first indicator of some learning or other issues

The point being, one is looking for depressed ability in specific tasks, not geniuses. It doesn't work the other way because it becomes difficult to quantify and define high intelligence. When you are working with the basic cognitive  attributes/deficits it is easier to measure because disabled people's ability to function normally is directly affected. 

 

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

The same could be said for Chemistry tests. Just how well does a chemistry test judge the chemistry knowledge of the dyslexic, blind, person who never used a pen, etc.

There is a presumption that the person taking a chemistry test has learnt the requisite material; it's not equivalent.

Edited January 14, 2019 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

21 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

There is a presumption that the person taking a chemistry test has learnt the requisite material; it's not equivalent.

If you are going to use the blindness of the test taker as a failure of IQ tests, then  it is reasonable to use blindness as a failure of chemistry tests.

In other words, it is unfair to judge the efficacy of IQ tests due to such physical disabilities of the test taker

Therefore, my comparison was equivalent.

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If you are going to use the blindness of the test taker as a failure of IQ tests, then  it is reasonable to use blindness as a failure of chemistry tests.

In other words, it is unfair to judge the efficacy of IQ tests due to such physical disabilities of the test taker

Therefore, my comparison was equivalent.

Braille, audio...  

Edited January 14, 2019 by StringJunky

[Bushranger]

On 1/14/2019 at 5:53 PM, John Cuthber said:

But what, exactly, does it let you judge?

For example, how well does it judge the intelligence of the dyslexic ones?

The blind ones?

Those for whom it's not in their first language?

Those who have never used a pen before?

In all those cases, what it measures is their ability to do an IQ test.
And, as you point out, that's partly down to practice rather than innate ability. 
 

So, what use is it?
Well, it doe a fair job of what it was originally intended for- but that's it.

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.   

[nymnpseudo]

The weaker the IQ the better for the military.  As far as doctors go, a person with a normal iq who applies it will probably do better than a better with a high iq who is lazy.