Do you agree that the Army is measurably biased against officers with higher cognitive ability?

2016-05-05T09:02:01-04:00

If you think that the bias is there, do you think it's significant? If it is, what you think could (and should) be done to overcome it, by the institution and by the individual? Do the other services have a similar bias?

[EDIT: removed no-longer-valid URL]

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/05/innovation-oped/128034

Forget Technology. The Real Military Edge Comes From Promoting Smart People

A military culture that values people – and their intellectual development — will drive the innovation needed to win our wars.

Response by Capt Jimmy Santos made May 5 at 2016 9:05 AM

2016-05-05T09:05:38-04:00

1LT William Clardy ,

This seems to have been the case with local police forces for a while. http://www.mintpressnews.com/can-someone-be-too-smart-to-be-a-cop/192106/

Can Someone Be Too Smart To Be A Cop?

Ever called a police officer “stupid” or questioned whether he or she was actually using their brain? If so, you wouldn’t be alone, and you might not even be wrong.

Response by 1stLt Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2016 9:19 AM

2016-05-05T09:19:54-04:00

If you think that a servicemember's ASVAB or GCT score should be a factor in the marks you give him on his fitrep, then by all means-go ahead.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2016 9:45 AM

2016-05-05T09:45:44-04:00

What about us enlisted folk?

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made May 5 at 2016 9:48 AM

2016-05-05T09:48:35-04:00

I don't think this can be proven

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made May 5 at 2016 10:11 AM

2016-05-05T10:11:38-04:00

If you go beyond the academia speak, you'll see some human factors in play. The leadership in all the services will publish they want brightest and motivated. But they also fear it on an individual basis.. People inherently don't like the prospect of leading or supervising people who are better than they are. They want a level of compliance where the junior will always remain their junior. In the higher officer ranks, the Flags want senior officers who will fit into the club, not turn it over. It's a real gut check to say promote this one and let me work for him/her.

On the other hand, I've seen some spectacular flame outs where a bright and motivated SM can't see the trees for the forest. I believe that is similar to Capt Jimmy Santos point regarding police officers. Brighter types, besides a higher risk of boredom, also tend to assume others will fill in the gaps around them. Or, they know they're brighter and micromanage their people to death. So what the services really want is a very particular officer who's not too much this or not too much that.

My brother is very bright and very motivated but he's likely Aspergers with hints of clairvoyance. He'd never fit in the service. However he could figure out 16 years in advance what the science packages, their weights built with technology that won't be there for years, etc. so when the bean bag hit Mars, it was within 3 ounces of his original analysis. The big NASA truism is everything calculates to lift.

Bottom line, brightest and motivated are significant pieces of the pie that better have humility, perception, visualization, and others to be the most effective. That and the sense not to be a smart ass.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 5 at 2016 10:14 AM

2016-05-05T10:14:05-04:00

In one of Heinlein's books he made reference to the phenomena of not being able to communicate effectively if you were outside certain "intelligence bands." For simplicity sake let's use the Bell Curve.

The Average Human sits at 100 IQ. That person can communicate effectively with most people down to 80~ and up to 120~ IQs. A nice 40 "band". However someone with 120 cannot communicate with someone at 80 or even 90. That person is just not operating at the same "speed" Likewise someone at 100 will have a hell of time dealing with someone at 140.

Think of it like gears. You have to have progressively faster and slower gears as you move up the CoC. Generals should in theory be operating FAST... however there's a problem... we get Generals from Lieutenants, and promotion rates are (relatively) "constant."

So what happens to a cog that is moving a "different speed" (either faster or slower) inside a machine where all the other cogs are moving at essentially the same speed? The "systemic pressures" are going to lead to two (main) outcomes: Conformity or Expulsion (Voluntary or Involuntary).

You get these amazingly smart guys who are operating at 100-X% (not full potential) or you get guys who decide that the military is not meeting their needs. Alternatively, you get Non-Conformists who cannot progress and do not have the Authority to use their Full Potential.

Is there a Conscious Bias? Probably not. Is it a systemic issue? Absolutely. We've been talking about "Losing the best & brightest of the officer corps" since I joined over 20 years ago. I'm willing to bet that guys like LTC Stephen F. heard of the issue when he was going through West Point.

Now how do we "measure" this?

Every year when the USMC puts out promotion lists we provide demographic information (Racial & Gender) to accompany the list. Why can't we include the "average" ASVAB (file) information for the current batch of promotees? It would show whether there is an upward, downward, or steady slope among selectees. It's all statistical data which is easily computed.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2016 10:14 AM

2016-05-05T10:14:20-04:00

My cognitive acumen isn't high enough to develop a response.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made May 5 at 2016 10:41 AM

2016-05-05T10:41:04-04:00

In the history of the US Army I suspect that in extended periods of peace there is a bias towards commissioned officers with higher cognitive ability 1LT William Clardy. I assume you are focusing on commissioned officers. I consider warrant and non-commissioned officers to be officers as well in the broader sense.
In the major wars [I define as where general mobilization occurs] including the US Civil War and WWII, cognitive ability was not as important as tactical and operational skills including leadership.
We have been in a period of protracted warfare for 15 years or so for conventional forces and longer for unconventional forces. This period has stretched the Reserve Component forces well beyond their designed utilization rates which has impacted family life, business growth and mental health of many.
I graduated from USMA at West Point in 1980 after being a prior service enlisted man. Branch selection and assignments selections are based on a ranking of graduating cadets based on the whole man concept [changed to whole person I belie with my class since we were the first with women cadets]. Those at the very top and the very bottom had the highest cognitive abilities. The bottom cadet had to do just enough to be the last one in order to be the goat of the class - honored position plus at that time $1 from every graduating cadet.
In my class the best and brightest selected Infantry or Engineer with most selecting Infantry. That seemed to be the case for most of the classes in that time frame. A small percentage of the best and brightest went on to advanced schooling directly.
Because the Army in not uniform in its leadership characteristics and enforcement of regulations and policies there is significant variance in potential for improvement and promotion. Promotion is largely based on efficiency reports. I would expect that there are many instances of bias for and against officers who flaunt "higher" cognitive abilities within the various commands over time.
Divisions, Brigades and especially Battalions have a culture which is largely influenced by the Commander and CSM.
I submit that there is no inherent bias for or against officers with higher cognitive abilities across the military. However you could easily find bias within some commands over time.
Thanks for mentioning me Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2016 10:50 AM

2016-05-05T10:50:58-04:00

Here's a telling anecdote: apparently, from analysis of recent promotion boards, it is evident that those officers lucky enough or hard-working enough to have earned a masters degree (which in itself might be a proxy measure of cognitive ability) are promoted at the same rate as officers with no advanced schooling. Even more telling, officers with advanced degrees from top end universities (Harvard, Yale, etc) are promoted at the same rate as officers with advanced degrees from lower-tier universities----the quality of the school isn't an important factor. To me, these two trends suggest that the Army simply does not value advanced education, and as a proxy measure of how the Army values cognitive ability, suggests the Army doesn't value this highly, either. Now, clearly there are many intelligent officers who are promoted to general----perhaps not based on cognitive ability, though, but rather based on success as annotated with top block OERs. We do have a "strong but dumb" culture in the Army where physical prowess is annotated on all evaluations (ie, pass/fail annotation for APFT and height/weight). It is at least a bit telling that cognitive measures (iq test) or their proxies (advanced degrees, for example) aren't required entries on OERs.

Response by SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint made May 5 at 2016 10:57 AM

2016-05-05T10:57:09-04:00

Gosh LT, are you saying we should or should not have smart officers?
Sorry, that was just too funny. I have had everything from being in the INF with fictional illiterate, back in the 1970s, and I had a Canoe U/Annapolis Nuke Physics Grad for an INF Plt Commander. Now we have PhD General Officers.

Response by SGT William Howell made May 5 at 2016 10:58 AM

2016-05-05T10:58:34-04:00

I had a friend that got out of the AF as a 1LT. He was a co-pilot on C-130s. He left the AF because he could not get promoted. He was a member of MENSA and had to have some crazy number IQ (I am guessing 140+). We were both gun nuts and that is where we found common ground. When shooting long distances I would pull out a calculator for my adjustments, he would just start clicking away on the scope. He already did all the math in his head. He giggled all the time, even if we were not talking. Shit was running though his mind all the time. It was good for me because I had to step up my game to communicate with him and it was good for him because he had to be social (and he had to dumb it down to speak to me).

The point was he was a super brain on legs, but he could not function in a social environment. Therefore, for the good of the AF he was let go.

Response by CPT Mark Gonzalez made May 5 at 2016 11:17 AM

2016-05-05T11:17:03-04:00

This is an interesting subject, but on a side note. For every Soldier with an IQ of 120 to 140, you will have multiple more Soldiers that think they are that smart, but are actually narcissists.
I believe you have to be able to apply your cognitive ability for it to equal competency. So a high IQ may equate to higher performance, but not for all as there are too many lazy smart people. I agree with the article though in there are smart people who question things more for good reason, but you also have smart and dumb people who just have authority issues. Human interaction is a funny thing, but the military has a screwed up talent management system so good luck.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2016 11:26 AM

2016-05-05T11:26:44-04:00

Do you have higher cognitive ability than other officers? Please supply me with your qualitative and quantitative data.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made May 5 at 2016 12:25 PM

2016-05-05T12:25:48-04:00

I think the AF may have just demonstrated an example: Gen John Hyten is arguably one of the AF's most brilliant 4 stars, and he rose within the Space community's ranks at least in part due to his superior intellect. He was in line to be our next CSAF. But the AF just selected Gen David "Fingers" Goldfein. Gen Goldfein is also a very intelligent man, but that is not the sole or even the driving criteria anymore at this level. He is the quintessential fighter weapons school grad, F-117 combat pilot, Distinguished Flying Cross-kind of AF general who has the operational gravitas to compete with the other services and have some automatic respect with Congress.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made May 5 at 2016 12:38 PM

2016-05-05T12:38:44-04:00

The major problem with higher intellienge and education is that it often is accompanied by an air of superiority and arrogance and not by common sense. These are the leaders that often fail, and they blame it on thier superiors and peers for being intellectually inferior and not willing to deal with them being the greatest thing since sliced bread.
When I was stationed at The Basic School I rubbed elbows with a legendary 2nd Lt by the name of Sparks. He had already became the butt of many jokes because he had submitted numerous how-to articles and opinion pieces to military publications. He was probably one of the most intelligent and well written individuals there. however he was batshit nuts with all his theories.
This was way back in the mis-80s. He ended up never finishing TBS and gertting out and moving over to either the National Guard or State Militia.
As far as I know he still produces crazy opinion pieces. Two that I remember are that the US should replave its current AFV with the old M113 and that every infantryman should caryy an SKS as a back up weapon.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2016 12:58 PM

2016-05-05T12:58:08-04:00

No, I don't think so. If those officers believe that their higher cognitive ability exempts them from working at the normal level of authority and responsibility that would be expected for a CPT or LT, and that high-ranking officers should treat them as peers, then I could see a pretty uncomfortable situation coming out of that though.

Response by CPT John Sheridan made May 5 at 2016 3:51 PM

2016-05-05T15:51:06-04:00

I offer this anecdote and advice. Anecdote: I Once worked for a CEO that was smart, funny, volatile, and, perhaps a little self-absorbed. One of my colleagues summed up the best way to deal with him. He said, "when Andy is in the room, there's only one funny guy in the room and you aren't it." Advice: you may be highly intelligent, but you don't have to be the smartest guy in the room. It's good to step out of your own head from time to time and try to see yourself as others see you. It's also good to exercise empathy and see things from from other people's perspective. The smart guy thinks he dazzling with his brilliance, but the commander doesn't like that his show was stolen and his peers see him as a competitive threat. Demonstrate intelligence with actions, not words.

Response by LTC Tom Jones made May 6 at 2016 9:41 AM

2016-05-06T09:41:17-04:00

According to the Parameters article, data shows that bias does exist. Answer to the toss up question, then, is yes. Follow-on question is, so what. It's not really a question so much as a statement. I recall leadership being defined as an "art" and a "science." I don't think anybody is ready to put IBM's Watson in charge of the military even though that "device" can "out-think" most or all of us. Interesting that the related article ("Forget Technology...") leads in with the "outside the box" thinking of South American law enforcement trumping the analytical (reasoned/smart) approach of our operatives in the area--kinda like the Soviets using pencils in Space rather than spending tons of money on developing an operable, zero-gravity ink pen (NASA related urban legend, perhaps). I had two, genius level (I'm talking 180+ range IQ's) brothers as JROTC Battalion Commanders (one following the other) some years back. When we did the timed "uses of a coat-hanger" exercise in the classroom, Michael (the "brighter" of the two by some two to four points) performed dismally (about a dozen uses after three minutes) while one "D Student" developed nearly 40 plausible responses and a very average "C Student" won the contest with a score of around 30; NOTE: I (rightly or wrongly) disqualified the D Student because his answers included "hang a shirt," "hang pants," "hang a dress," "hang socks," etc. I am not saying we should not strive to pick the "best and the brightest" for filling our senior leadership billets nor am I saying we should ignore this or any particular bias. Am simply saying, it is a complex subject and the "science" side is only part of the issue especially when dealing with people.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 6 at 2016 2:20 PM

2016-05-06T14:20:55-04:00

When I was enlisted USAF, there reached a point where I was "held back" due to my intelligence. At first, I was their "golden boy". Made E4 BZ and E5 first look. but once I made E5 I noticed a distinct change in attitude from my E6-E7 supervisors. It was almost as if they were afraid I was going to outstrip them. I started getting all the crappiest of crappy assignments. Given tasks that were, for all intents and purposes, impossible to accomplish. etc.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made May 6 at 2016 11:40 PM

2016-05-06T23:40:30-04:00

I'd say it depends. In war the war horses rise to the top, in peace the show ponies win out. Clearly evident in hitory of major war periods in US history.

Any bureaucratic system is going to optimize over time for things that it measures, so I think the study's proponents have some interesting points.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2016 3:10 PM

2016-05-12T15:10:41-04:00

Intelligence does not directly correlate to leadership capabilities. Some of the most intelligent professors in college are the worst teachers in the university. They have the brains, but lack the ability to translate it to where other people can understand it. Same thing goes with leadership. If you cannot translate your brilliance into plans which can be turned into action, you fail. This study doesn't even bounce off the subject once. It simply equates intelligence to being awesome...so you should be a general. You have to be intelligent (not necessarily genius level), charismatic (seriously...you need to be someone with a personality that can lead), well spoken (you can't sound like an idiot savant), courageous (you need to break out of mental and social boxes when necessary), and frankly have quite a bit of luck going for you (timing of jobs, available jobs, the right peer group, and a ton of other things) to make it to the highest ranks. Intelligence is one of a bucket load of characteristics that make up an officer that should be a senior leader in the Army. Distilling it down to one trait is dangerous and ignorant of the other qualities that we look for. I want a leader who is intelligent, but I will not sacrifice the other qualities for this one alone.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2016 5:52 PM

2016-05-19T17:52:58-04:00

I'm not convinced the Army is measurably biased against smart officers. E. Spain has shown a measurable bias, but it is in a small segment of the officer population. USMA grads make up roughly 30% of the officer pool. The rest of the Army probably resists this kind of measurement because the data isn't there.

I'm also not convinced that there is a shortage of smart officers in the Army. That's just not my experience, and being in the Army is not rocket science either. No shortage, no problem, even if the mentats aren't getting promoted at the same rate.

I would freely admit that conventional officers have a higher success rate at early promotion and battalion command, and that smarter officers tend to be less conventional... seeking out career risks like advanced civil schooling, broadening assignments, and other opportunities with distant payoffs.

Who knows though, and should those serving in the Army care? I tend to think the best strategy for the Army is to avoid being overly focused on "human capital" and "talent management" but instead to build on a system that CREATES the human capital and talent that we need. Need more? Make more. Don't steal it from the general population. There are many opportunities to motivate smart people to stay in outside early promotion and selection for command, and there are many occasions to ensure that we have just the right balance of intellect and other attributes.

There's no reason to despair. Being smart has its own rewards does it not? If the concern is working for people who aren't as smart as you, then wouldn't the fix be worse than the problem? I would have had a difficult time progressing up the chain of command if everyone I ever worked for was smarter than me or if everyone who worked for me had a lesser intellect.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Jun 9 at 2019 3:35 PM

2019-06-09T15:35:54-04:00

I am relatively sure that there has never been an official study. I am even more certain that no rankbis looked down upon for having exceptional skill in one area or another. Erogance tgat can sometimes come forth from an individual with exceptional skills can be looked down on. It is the erigance not the skill that is the issue. Thank you for your service.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Jun 9 at 2019 3:38 PM

2019-06-09T15:38:46-04:00

No I do not. I am sure there has never been a study to confirm or deny. It is not the exceptional ability that is frowned upon, it is the arrogance that can come with it. Therefore, it is the arrogance not the exceptional ability. Thank you for your service.

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Jun 11 at 2019 1:40 AM

2019-06-11T01:40:57-04:00

The correct URL to the Parameters article originally linked to is

https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/Parameters/Issues/Summer_2015/10_Spain.pdf

10_Spain.pdf

fàÍÌí?XM{;mváõ+BS9T/XDæÍ/ØäòM»f5V?ØðËÖËf ·g~ó"Ð|vîw í`Á`+pq(hÍÒ: ÌaPRRq:`ÇlìâÚ`FAb¶4k(qZ.d=00UP»\&"ëg`I1FÀÁÂh10_ý5""ÉÀÏÇ3B1A¡ñÛ*.3üaxÍbÃÏ!qÂÈÀÁÚá's?s&cËüª6·¶^ZÁÍRÄPÌ(ÉÇC@KÐa*?ãö,ØÉqrÃ_ ìÈiÒ%ø8 ó¶1p|tk{zÚØ;[jKÉÅì:ç@Uk?Kr 8O18qKñ 8ü¿ endstream endobj 88 0 obj /Metadata 85 0 R/Outlines 62 0 R/PageLabels 79 0 R/Pages 81 0 R/Type/Catalog/ViewerPreferences endobj 89 0 obj /ExtGState/Font/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/Rotate 0/Tabs/W/Thumb 63 0 R/TrimBox[0.0...