SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
the researchers have focused on risk preference or aversion, and the possibility that it might be measurable and compared to others, offering a scale of sorts.
To learn more about how eager people are to engage in risky behavior, the researchers enlisted the assistance of 1500 volunteer adults to take a series of tests (39 tests in all), which together were meant to gauge a person's desire to seek out risky behavior. The team then analyzed the data and found that 61 percent of the variation in risky behavior scores could be summed up with a single component—a person's risk preference quotient, if you will. The remaining factors could all be attributed to which particular type of risk was involved. The single component, which the team dubbed as R, is general, the team notes, which suggests it can be applied multiple to[sic] risk situations along with other factors attributable to a particular type of risk.
The top level in intelligence quotient is called, "genius." Should the top level in risk quotient be called, "Hey Y'all, hold my beer?"
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 08 2017, @04:07AM (2 children)
You're conflating your own personal opinions of intelligence, with your own personal opinion of risk taking.
Talk to some veterans some day. Veterans are a damned good cross section of all demographics. You'll find a few who are pretty damned chicken shit, very risk averse, but have still stood up and risked their lives. You'll find others who love risk for the sake of risk. And, the IQ thing has little to do with their risk aversion - very little.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @07:47AM (1 child)
> Veterans are a damned good cross section of all demographics.
Disagree. I grew up with role models (including my father) who didn't serve in WWII...because they were developing military aircraft and thus were deferred. They were damn clever designers/engineers/pilots/technicians, worked very long hours and took big personal risks (flight testing was a dangerous business) but didn't have the military type of risk with people shooting at them directly. Also didn't have any patience for military discipline, by and large would not have made good soldiers (imo).
Out of their culture came the concept of "calculated risk". Look at the timing, initial uses started just before WWII: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=calculated%20risk&year_start=1000&year_end=2200&corpus=15&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccalculated%20risk%3B%2Cc0 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 08 2017, @11:30AM
Actually, none of your post supports the "disagree" declaration. Clever designers, and whatnot? The military has them. Work long hours - got it, in spades. Personal risks? Well, duhh. Oh, no people shooting at them? Do you really think that a hostile enemy changes a person's psyche so much, that he changes his perception of risk?
Patience for military discipline. I'll bet you think you've got me with that. But, no. Boots coming into the military have little if any patience with discipline. They are TAUGHT that discipline is a fact of life. Some of us are taught harsher lessons than others. Any Marine, commanded to jump, will jump, and on his way up, ask "How high, Sir?" Me - not so much. Squids aren't held to quite the same standard. We can question orders, ask for clarification, make objections, so long as our questions are pertinent, and phrased respectfully. No blind obedience - well, maybe, in some cases. Those tasks that really don't require much thought, especially when lives might be at risk, you just keep your mouth shut and follow orders, because it's necessary.
The Army, with it's many different MOS's and various specialists probably is slightly less strict than the Marines, but, overall, may be a little stricter than the Navy. You would have to get someone like Buzzard to weigh in on that.
But, back to what I said to start with: The Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marines are nearly perfect cross sections of American demographics. Currently, there is one group that is "over represented" in the military, that being female Latinos. All other cross sections - intellignece, wealth, education, race, religion, you name it - the military is a cross section of the population of the US.