WHAT PSYCHOLOGY CONTRIBUTED 365 



the extent of these differences. The one of these figures, i 

 represents the distribution of the various grades of intelligence 

 in such important military groups as enlisted men, non-com- 

 missioned officers (corporals and sergeants), students in officers' 

 training camps (O. T. C.), and officers. The letter grades, as 

 has already been stated in the previous chapter, designate from 

 A to D degrees of intelligence which range all the way from 

 very superior (A) to very inferior (D ). Commissioned 

 officers of the United States Army,with few exceptions, possess 

 superior or very superior intelligence. A few of the good 

 officers fall in the C -f- class and a still smaller number, almost 

 invariably unsatisfactory to the service, possess only average 

 intelligence, designated by the letter C. By contrast with the 

 officers, illiterate enlisted men usually possess inferior intelli- 

 gence. Many of them are very inferior and relatively few 

 rise above the high average represented by C -f. The average 

 literate enlisted man possesses that middle grade ability which 

 is designated by C. 



Another method of representing differences in intelligence 

 between important military groups is used in Fig. 2. In this 

 case the several grades are thrown into three groups which 

 may be designated conveniently high, medium, and low. It is 

 noteworthy that commissioned officers are found only in the 

 medium and high groups, that students in officers' training 

 camps, who by virtue of this fact are candidates for appoint- 

 ment as officers, occasionally fall in the low intelligence groups. 

 White recruits are rather more frequently found in the low 

 than in the high groups, although the great majority of them 

 are of medium intelligence. Those soldiers who are least satis- 

 factory for military service and most expensive are more often 

 than not found to have low intelligence. The figure in ques- 

 tion roughly represents the results for four such groups: dis- 

 ciplinary cases, men ranked by their officers as poorest in their 

 company, men of low military value as judged by their officers, 

 and unteachable men. 



The results of psychological examination as sampled by these 



