"Smarter Scots more likely to die in combat"

[Arlen]

*Sighs*
Some of the theories in there are completely contrived. It's a sad day when things like this get published were the unsuspecting might believe they have any merit.

[auld argonian]

It also seems to be ignoring the fact that an "average" IQ is just that: an average. Quibbling about +10 or -10 IQ points is a little silly.

Consider the work of Howard Gardner, he of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. HG pointed out that the IQ test is/was a test that was designed by middle level bureaucrats to find more people with the potential to be middle level bureaucrats. HG points out that one might not be "book smart" but may be a very talented artist or a very compassionate person...thus, what is colloquially referred to as "intelligence", as measured by the IQ test, may not be the true measure of a man.

Just sayin'.....

Best

AA

[BroosterB1]

To high jack the thread just a touch, but not really; intelligence has nothing to do with Honor or Courage, or for that matter happiness. An old saying is the "happiness is not a destination, but rather a choice"; we can choose to be happy, but we can not choose to be other than what we are intelligence wise. Of course learning, both experience and formal, can help give us wisdom, but raw intelligence is some thing we either have or not.

It also could be argued that intelligence can be a doubled edged sword; the more likely you are to be lost in contemplation on the how of things, the less likely you are to be involved with the now of things. Intelligence is only one measure of a person, spirit, wisdom, drive, persistence, loyalty, convection are all other aspects that are insanely difficult to pin down. Could it be that more intelligent Scots died, because as a whole they were more loyal to the cause? Or that because of their Social-Economic status at the time they did not enjoy the same opportunities as other members of the UK?

One of the huge problems in dealing with theoretical arguments as these is there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove the assertions. The data is hugely lacking, dated, and corrupted. The participants are for the most part long gone, the methodology suspect, and the conclusions questionable. Ah, but someone always has an axe to grind on the subject. Me thinks he doth protest too much.

When on Romulus do as the Regalians do?