IQ is limited because it only looks at one facet and it generalizes a lot. Tests that look both into ability and aptitude, and especially those who split them by domain are much more relevant and applicable to real world scenarios.
IQ does actually measure quite widely, but only one of many parts (the visual pattern matching part) is widely know outside of academic use. But even then it should not be used for hiring or intelligence scoring people against one-another.
If you actually want to test people for hiring, using domain specific interview questions and tests is a-lot more reasonable and usefully correlated with real-world job performance.
The goal is to predict if, for example, someone is better suited to sweeping the floors vs working with complex systems. Both are useful and respectable jobs but you both want an individual who can actually do it, not someone who just thinks they can, and someone whose capabilities won't be wasted on too simple tasks. These tests are great tools to help you figure out future performances of said individuals, as well as their satisfaction on the job/task. A mismatch will cause impact both for the individual and the company/military unit/etc.
The US Army requires a minimum AFQT percentile of 31 for enlistment which, based on standard IQ norms (mean = 100, SD = 15), maps to roughly an IQ of 85 (one standard deviation below mean).
I.e. if you have an IQ below 85 you can't even sweep up the floor for the army
Around 50 million Americans fall below this threshold and are positively counterproductive for ANY military purpose, no matter how menial, no matter the shortage of recruits.
Well the flynn effect is global so either the russians won ww2 with people an SD below today's mean IQ or the US military thinks that the russian army (that won ww2) circa '40 wasn't even fit for cannon fodder.
Flynn effect operates on the assumption that intelligence is a valid and measurable metric, while you previously argued it was not. You selectively do believe in when it affirms your bias? Nice one. You think you know more about this than experts who study it. I see. That's enough of you lol.
No, the Flynn Effect is an observation that raw scores on "IQ tests" have increased over (a far too short period to be attributable to evolution) time and/but IQ is defined as having a median value of 100 . It is not an assumption that intelligence is a measurable metric (redundant) it is an observation that the metric is a shit metric -- particularly over time. It is explicitly a point against "IQ" as a valid and measurable metric.
So now you're pivoting to saying Flynn Effect is just an observation of noise and human error with no meaning. You brought up the Flynn Effect, but you don't think it's meaningful to measure IQ? But you do think time series analysis on IQ is meaningful? You made no attempt at even a reasoned claim that Flynn Effect debunks validity of IQ. It's all patchwork emo stuff going on with u, and u agree grammur policing is a last resort of a broken mind. Not much respond to when you have to twist yourself in a pretzel and then trip over your own arguments on the pivot.
So you're arguing it ws low IQ vs low IQ? Okay... Do you have a point? I understand that you're upset for some reasno.
Do you have a counter-point? You think the army is stupid and you know better? What is your point?
Would you prefer your child have an IQ of 120 or 80? If you have a preference, then you're morally inconsistent and don't even realize it? That must be a frustrating condition to go through life with? At least try to have a nice day in spite of your limitations. It's not your fault, we're all equal in God's eyes.
Good job being incapable of synthesizing both of your perversions into a single post.
I am "arguing" (not arguing, simply stating basic facts) that neither Russia nor the USA were giving "IQ tests" to soldiers. Also neither Russia nor the USA are currently giving "IQ tests" to soldiers.
To Wit: I do not think the Army not accepting people who score too low on their entrance exam has anything to do with "IQ".
Also neither I nor my hypothetical child will be taking an "IQ test" (again not actually a defined thing) so having a preference is not a sensible idea.
If you had to pick 120 or 80, what would it be? You have no preference whether they can read or write? Notice you're cornered logically? Wouldn't you prefer to have a strong opinion based in reason?
> The goal is to predict if, for example, someone is better suited to sweeping the floors vs working with complex systems.
That is a perversion of the purpose and origin of these tests, and a core reason why ICAR tries to replace IQ tests with a wider set of different logic puzzles without any established "aggregate score" metric for people to abuse.
Motorcycle helmets generally have a thicker, smooth exterior shell that better protects the foamed plastic under it from UV and O2 degradation. With cheaper bike helmets, they often have more ventilation holes, and you can usually see the formed EPS.
That said, you could just put zinc oxide sunblock on your helmet and then protect the UV-blocking layer with a spray urethane top-coat, and thereby extend the useful lifespan of your helmet by years.
Can't really do much about O2 damage or migration of plasticizers, though, unless you want to freeze your helmet any time you're not wearing it. Keeping it in an air-conditioned interior room rather than a hot garage or bike locker might help.
EPS can last quite a while when buried, where it is protected from UV, excessive O2, or heat extremes, but I wouldn't entirely trust an EPS helmet beyond 10 years. It's not so much that EPS can't last that long, but that you can't guarantee that it hasn't encountered environmental conditions that would result in degradation over longer time spans. Better a 10-year-old helmet than no helmet, though. There's no excuse for doing that when municipalities sometimes just give away free (to the recipient) bicycle helmets, maybe with sponsorship by an insurer or National Safety Council or similar organization.
> That said, you could just put zinc oxide sunblock on your helmet and then protect the UV-blocking layer with a spray urethane top-coat, and thereby extend the useful lifespan of your helmet by years.
Please don't fuck about with safety critical equipment.
I do not accept as axiomatic that bike helmets are "safety critical". They may be safety-improving, but I have no evidence available as to how much.
While following up, I discovered that what I suggested is patented. US 6884501.
Anyway, please don't ask people not to hack on a site with "Hacker" in the title. You are free to replace your own expanded-polystyrene bike helmets on a schedule set by helmet manufacturers and cyclist-targeting publications, if you choose. I believe that if a helmet shows no outward signs of degradation or damage, and no known incidences of impacts, there is no particular need to replace it. Just use it until it's dirty, damaged, or unfashionable, and replace it then.
There aren't a lot of studies on the real-world effectiveness of factory-new bike helmets, and as far as I know, none that actually support any particular expiration date for them. Even Snell admits that their 5-year guideline is based on "consensus" and "prudence", and not any actual evidence [0]. And one of the arguments is literally that "we will probably have better helmets available five years from now". Having been around longer than that, it just isn't true (at the price point where I buy helmets). The bike helmet I have now is largely the same as the one I had as a kid. More holes. More fashionable. More comfortable. Functionally the same. Wrap skull in 2" shell of expanded polystyrene, and put a cover over it.
Keep your helmet cool, clean, and out of direct sunlight, and it will last longer than five years. Prophylactically treating one of the well-known causes of failure in expanded polystyrene, immediately after purchase, will help.
Anyone who cycles frequently will likely replace more often based on acquired grime or stink, anyway.
