This popular science article, generally backs up Peterson's claims.

All military recruits must take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) to qualify for enlistment. The ASVAB is essentially an IQ test (correlation = 0.8). The ASVAB predicts SAT scores (correlation = .82). And it correlates with ACT scores (0.77).

 

To qualify, recruits must score higher than roughly one-third of all who take the ASVAB. The lowest acceptable percentile score to join is 36 for the Air Force, 35 for the Navy, 32 for the Marine Corps, and 31 for the Army.

 

By definition, the worst test taker who makes it into the military still scores higher than one-third of his or her peers. The military intentionally slices off the bottom third of test takers, not allowing them to join.

This information tells us that Peterson's claim is approximately correct. We know that there is a minimum equivalent IQ that is needed to get into the military. We do not know if that minimum is 85.

Peterson's claim is made in a couple of sentences, and he has to build to a fairly complex point in a 3 minute talk. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he had to bury these complexities for the sake of brevity.

This website spells out the rules the different armed forces use to determine required ASVAB scores. The army has the lowest bar for general recruits with an ASVAB of 31. The marines will occasionally let someone in with an ASVAB of 25, but I will choose to ignore occasional exceptions for the sake of simplicity.

I am unable to find a good source for the correlation between ASVAB and IQ. This 37 year old military report suggests that a 91 IQ is equivalent to a 31 on the ASVAB, which means Peterson's claim is correct. However, this research is quite old, and tests and populations have changed in that time. I am going to refrain from giving a definite answer.

As for your question #3, I am going to completely put that to the side. Sorting out motives of a large group of administrators can be tricky in the best circumstances. It should really be a separate question.

This popular science article, generally backs up Peterson's claims.

All military recruits must take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) to qualify for enlistment. The ASVAB is essentially an IQ test (correlation = 0.8). The ASVAB predicts SAT scores (correlation = .82). And it correlates with ACT scores (0.77).

To qualify, recruits must score higher than roughly one-third of all who take the ASVAB. The lowest acceptable percentile score to join is 36 for the Air Force, 35 for the Navy, 32 for the Marine Corps, and 31 for the Army.

By definition, the worst test taker who makes it into the military still scores higher than one-third of his or her peers. The military intentionally slices off the bottom third of test takers, not allowing them to join.

This information tells us that Peterson's claim is approximately correct. We know that there is a minimum equivalent IQ that is needed to get into the military. We do not know if that minimum is 85.

Peterson's claim is made in a couple of sentences, and he has to build to a fairly complex point in a 3 minute talk. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he had to bury these complexities for the sake of brevity.

This website spells out the rules the different armed forces use to determine required ASVAB scores. The army has the lowest bar for general recruits with an ASVAB of 31. The marines will occasionally let someone in with an ASVAB of 25, but I will choose to ignore occasional exceptions for the sake of simplicity.

I am unable to find a good source for the correlation between ASVAB and IQ. This 37 year old military report suggests that a 91 IQ is equivalent to a 31 on the ASVAB, which means Peterson's claim is correct. However, this research is quite old, and tests and populations have changed in that time. I am going to refrain from giving a definite answer.

As for your question #3, I am going to completely put that to the side. Sorting out motives of a large group of administrators can be tricky in the best circumstances. It should really be a separate question.