The US military uses aptitude requirements to assess whether candidates are prepared for service, including the ability to make decisions when combat situations do not follow a script. Roberto Colom, a professor of differential psychology at the Autonomous University of Madrid, says the general threshold is roughly equivalent to an IQ of 83.
Colom discussed the issue on the ViOne podcast in a conversation with Álvaro Bernad about intelligence and how it is measured. He argues that soldiers need more than the ability to handle weapons: they may also have to act without clear instructions, anticipate consequences and respond effectively to situations not covered in training.
The military does not use a standard IQ test for enlistment. Candidates take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, or ASVAB, which assesses areas including arithmetic reasoning, reading comprehension, mathematics and technical knowledge. Its Armed Forces Qualification Test score, or AFQT, helps determine eligibility. The general exclusion threshold is below the 10th percentile, though minimum requirements differ by service branch. Candidates in the 10th to 30th percentiles may be accepted, but face substantial restrictions. Colom’s IQ comparison is approximate: AFQT percentiles and IQ scores measure different things.
The risks of relaxing standards were demonstrated by Project 100,000, launched by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara between 1966 and 1971 during the Vietnam War. The initiative aimed to recruit 100,000 men a year, including young people whose cognitive scores would previously have disqualified them. In total, 354,000 men who had not met earlier requirements entered the armed forces.
According to the figures cited in the source, participants had IQ scores below 91, and nearly half scored below 71. The programme’s outcomes were poor: 5,478 of these recruits died in combat and almost 20,300 were wounded. Later studies also found lower completion rates for basic and specialist training, early departures and more disciplinary problems.
Military commanders criticised the recruits’ difficulties with complex orders and the safe handling of weapons and explosives, saying these shortcomings could endanger both the recruits and their units. Colom’s account highlights why aptitude screening is treated as relevant not only to learning military tasks, but also to making sound decisions under pressure.
Sources: Motorpasión.