destroying egocentric in military & Can Capitalism Survive Sans War?

[coberst]

The Military Destroys the Egocentric

I was recently watching, for the third time, the movie “Full Metal Jacket”. For those who have been privileged to serve in the military this movie will bring back ^#%*@ memories. For those who have not had this privilege this movie will be instructive as to certain means to instill the proper attitude into the citizen turned soldier.

The military recruit spends eight weeks in basic training upon first entering service. This eight week period includes an introduction to certain skills and knowledge required by all military people. Primarily, however, these eight weeks are designed to change dramatically the attitude of the recruit.

One aspect of this attitude change focuses upon changing the natural egocentric attitude into a sociocentric attitude. We do not generally recognize that we are motivated by the impulse to “view everything within the world in relationship to oneself, to be self-centered”. We are innately egocentric.

The people who study such matters seem to conclude that the normal human reaction is generally irrationally egocentric. The military, I think, wishes to change that irrational egocentric behavior into an irrational sociocentric behavior with the military as the social group which replaces the individual ego.

It appears that the key question of an egocentric is “How can I get what I want and avoid having to change in any fundamental way?”

My point in mentioning all of this is to draw your attention to this natural egocentric behavior because it is the source of many of the problems our world is faced with. One of the reasons we (USA) get into terrible messes is because we do not study our adversary and develop rational solutions. Often egocentric tendencies on the part of all humans are our adversary.

I do not think we understand this natural behavior well enough. What is your considered opinion?

[TheBlackCat]

We do not generally recognize that we are motivated by the impulse to “view everything within the world in relationship to oneself, to be self-centered”. We are innately egocentric.
Speak for yourself

[sarongsong]

...My point in mentioning all of this is to draw your attention to this natural egocentric behavior...I do not think we understand this natural behavior well enough. What is your considered opinion?Looks like a one-way street (http://www.bautforum.com/search.php?searchid=152833).

[soylentgreen]

Speak for yourself

Which part...?
We do not generally recognize that we are motivated by the impulse...
or
We are innately egocentric.

and
Looks like a one-way street (http://www.bautforum.com/search.php?searchid=152833).
What do you mean? Your link goes nowhere. (Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.)

[TheBlackCat]

Which part...?
We do not generally recognize that we are motivated by the impulse...
or
We are innately egocentric.
Both

[soylentgreen]

Both

Sorry, I'm not clear on the thought. It seems like you're saying...

WE DO generally recognize that we are motivated by the impulse to “view everything within the world in relationship to oneself, to be self-centered”. But, you do not agree that we are innately egocentric.

[TheBlackCat]

If you recognize that you have the impulse and try to your best to supress it, then you are no longer egocentric. If you know you have the impulse to act irrationally, and thus are careful to act rationally, you are no longer completely irrational. The same principle applies. Just because you may have the natural tendency to be a certain way does not mean you are, in fact, that way if you work hard to avoid it. It doesn't mean you, or I rather, are perfect, but it does mean it can no longer be considered to dominate a person's behavior.

[Moose]

Coburst, if you have to "draw our attention" somewhere, please draw it elsewhere. Partisan politics are verbotten here.

Surely, with all the reading you've done, you've taken a moment to read the board rules? Imagine all the things you could learn in the faq if you just free your mind and abandon your indoctrinated pre-conceptions blah blah blah.

Look, just read the rules, okay?

[coberst]

I think that rational thought combats egotism when reason is combined with the knowledge of the fact that we all behave egotistically and that to prevent the ego from inhibiting reason we develop strong intellectual character. Intellectual character is the result of constantly and habitually recognizing our egotistical tendency and fighting those tendencies.

It appears to me that egocentricism often prevents a person from being rational.

I think that the ego has certain drives that make it difficult to be rational. One example is the desire for power. One can gain power through dominating others. One can gain power indirectly by submitting to others. The word ‘sycophant’ describes the latter. We do not need to go beyond recent headlines in the US to see the power one can acquire by being a sycophant. A sycophant cannot easily follow reason if reason interferes with groveling.

On the other hand the bully does irrational things in the quest for power.

I think the desire to belong is another ego problem that often leads to irrational behavior. Ideology constantly leads to foolish and irrational behavior.

I think that the ego leads people to forget, or to becomes self righteous, or to become blind to things happening, etc.

The point is that learning how to reason well is a necessary condition for reasoning well but is not sufficient for rational behavior. We have to recognize all of our innate selfish characteristics so that we can overcome them if we are to behave rationally with consistancy.

[Moose]

If you know you have the impulse to act irrationally, and thus are careful to act rationally, you are no longer completely irrational.

I should point out that sometimes what appears totally irrational is in reality perfectly considered, and thus rational. Oftentimes, reason is based on one or more incorrect premises, leading to a similarly incorrect conclusion. ATM and Conspiracies often have good examples of this. (Of course, those fora have good examples of irrationality, too. The trick is figuring out which is which.)

[Gillianren]

While I will concede that the most egocentric of my boyfriend's brothers is the one who didn't join the military, I'm told I just haven't met the worst one, because he's stationed somewhere by the Navy and has been the entire time my boyfriend and I have been together.

I really don't think the military itself has the power to change personality. For example, I'm highly inclined to doubt that they really want my boyfriend to have his sense of glee at the foibles of authority.

[sarongsong]

...What do you mean? Your link goes nowhere. (Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.)It was meant to list "All messages by coberst",wherein is demonstrated not one post submitted to any thread other than self-started ones, to me exemplifying egocentricity. Critical thinking?

[ASEI]

I think the desire to belong is another ego problem that often leads to irrational behavior. Ideology constantly leads to foolish and irrational behavior. I don't see ideologically driven people as being egocentric. Quite the opposite. The desire to belong are part of what you were earlier calling "socio-centric".

Often egocentric tendencies on the part of all humans are our adversary. Our sociocentric tendencies (or ideological-centric tendencies) seem to cause quite a bit of harm as well! Being socio-centric doesn't stop you from, say, cutting the heads off of people you consider as part of an outgroup.

A certain degree of egocentrism is necessary for survival. Without it, we would be unmotivated to look after ourselves. We would be easy to exploit by people who use whatever-it-is-that-we-are-now-centered-around to take advantage.

I think that the ego has certain drives that make it difficult to be rational. One example is the desire for power. One can gain power through dominating others. One can gain power indirectly by submitting to others. The word ‘sycophant’ describes the latter. We do not need to go beyond recent headlines in the US to see the power one can acquire by being a sycophant. A sycophant cannot easily follow reason if reason interferes with groveling. The desire for power isn't irrational at all. Without power, you get eaten. Without the ability to coerce, or at least to defend yourself (power), you'll be taken advantage of and used by people (or things, if you count nature) who do have that power.

No one wants to be a syncophant, but in certain situations, like tribal or authoritarian societies (our natural condition), it's the next best thing to being the leader. (Because the third and fourth best thing is to be a half starved slave or sacrificial scapegoat). It's probably why we have strong, but unfortunate instincts that bend us towards authority figures.

I think that rational thought combats egotism when reason is combined with the knowledge of the fact that we all behave egotistically and that to prevent the ego from inhibiting reason we develop strong intellectual character. Intellectual character is the result of constantly and habitually recognizing our egotistical tendency and fighting those tendencies. People with "intellectual character" often have their intellect strongly conflated with their egos. Not necessarily a bad thing, but there's nothing especially selfless or virtuous about them either.

[coberst]

I don't see ideologically driven people as being egocentric. Quite the opposite. The desire to belong are part of what you were earlier calling "socio-centric".

Our sociocentric tendencies (or ideological-centric tendencies) seem to cause quite a bit of harm as well! Being socio-centric doesn't stop you from, say, cutting the heads off of people you consider as part of an outgroup.

A certain degree of egocentrism is necessary for survival. Without it, we would be unmotivated to look after ourselves. We would be easy to exploit by people who use whatever-it-is-that-we-are-now-centered-around to take advantage.

The desire for power isn't irrational at all. Without power, you get eaten. Without the ability to coerce, or at least to defend yourself (power), you'll be taken advantage of and used by people (or things, if you count nature) who do have that power.

No one wants to be a syncophant, but in certain situations, like tribal or authoritarian societies (our natural condition), it's the next best thing to being the leader. (Because the third and fourth best thing is to be a half starved slave or sacrificial scapegoat). It's probably why we have strong, but unfortunate instincts that bend us towards authority figures.

People with "intellectual character" often have their intellect strongly conflated with their egos. Not necessarily a bad thing, but there's nothing especially selfless or virtuous about them either.

You are correct --"I don't see ideologically driven people as being egocentric. Quite the opposite. The desire to belong are part of what you were earlier calling "socio-centric". I am afraid I was not thinking very clearly, thanks for the clarification.

The military tends to replace a predominantly egocentric person with a predominantly sociocentric person.

The attitude of the soldier becomes indoctrinated into a particular group; the military. S/he becomes a member of a strong group and begins to unquestionably accept from that group a way of talking, a set of friends and enemies, certain rituals, behavior patterns, etc.

I suspect the change from civilian to soldier might be compared with the change from believer to non believer or vice versa. It might be compared to the young person who becomes a gang member. It might be compared with the non ideologue becoming an ideologue.

Sociocentric thinking is egocentric thinking wherein the group tends to replace the ego.

I am not a sociologist but from my readings this is pretty much a consensus of those who study such things.

[Halcyon Dayz]

It's not a matter of either/or.
Most people are a mix of ego-centric and socio-centric.

The primary purpose of military indoctrination, which might me considered
to be a mild form of brain-washing, is to change the focus of ones loyalties,
rather then to change your character.
People primarily associate themselves with their family-group and the community
they are part off. The further from home, the less it feels like family.
Boot-camp is to make your comrades your family, and the military your home.

[Nicolas]

My considered opinion is that you seem to have written your first post in this thread based on reading a single author or opinion.

Many people who study the group interactions of animals and humans (I don't know the correct English term) have found that people and (higher) animals will sometimes act in a way that is negative for themselves but positive for the group, so the long term effect is indeed positive for themselves. So this is egocentrism of a higher order, namely the knowledge that often a positive effect on the group includes a positive effect on the actor, often even larger than the alternative egocentric action in the given case.

Of course, the same individuals will sometimes behave purely egocentrical, and sometimes purely sociocentric, with no personal benefit.

All these subtilities are not included in your post, so I can't give an opinion on that statement other than saying that it is heavily incomplete in my opinion.

A nice example of egocentric versus sociocentric behaviour and everything in between can be found in the study of Bonobo group behaviour, but of course the same kind of studies have been done on humans.

It appears that the key question of an egocentric is “How can I get what I want and avoid having to change in any fundamental way?”
I've seen lots and lots of examples of egocentric behaviour where people deliberately change (eg act differently, often hypocrite) to get what they want. So it depends on your definition of "fundamental" whether this is correct or not. One could even argue that the egocentrism is the unique fundamental characteristic, and any other behaviour is a function of that. That would be a quite drastic "survivalistic" definition. But I just pose it here to show that your statement asks for a definition of "fundamental". So again there is far too little detail and a lack of identifying the multiplicity of the issue, things that are needed for a good discussion of the subject. That would be a discussion in which the identifiably (word? :)) wrong interpretations of the issue would be filtered out, and hopefully one or (probably) more valid points of view (models) are left over. The human group behaviour and egocentrism are far too complex to catch in one sentence in my opinion.


One more thing:

The military recruit spends eight weeks in basic training upon first entering service. What army? Obviously this is not the same everywhere. And not even every division of the army will have the same kind of training, or the same focus on ego/sociocentric aspects. To give an extreme example, think of spies versus aircraft carrier personel.

[Halcyon Dayz]

Many people who study the group interactions of animals and humans (I don't know the correct English term)...
That would be Social ethology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology#Social_ethology_and_recent_developments).

[Nicolas]

Indeed, thanks :). Does that term also count for investigating that behaviour on humans?

Just for clarity, I did not mean studying interaction between humans and animals.

[coberst]

It's not a matter of either/or.
Most people are a mix of ego-centric and socio-centric.

The primary purpose of military indoctrination, which might me considered
to be a mild form of brain-washing, is to change the focus of ones loyalties,
rather then to change your character.
People primarily associate themselves with their family-group and the community
they are part off. The further from home, the less it feels like family.
Boot-camp is to make your comrades your family, and the military your home.

The only thing I might take exception to is that the military does not change ones character.

I think that military training has a significant affect on character. Character is a set of habits and being in the military changes our set of habits significantly.

[coberst]

Nicolas

It is possible that I have been influenced by too few opinions. I am certainly not a psychologist or a sociologist. However every thing that I have written is confirmed by my experience.

I seldom remember that I am ‘talking’ with citizens of nations other than mine (US). However I would be very surprised that the period of basic training is significantly different; the reason being that a change of attitude is imperative for any military person of any nation. I suspect that if you were to ask people who have been in the military in your nation you would get the same answer. I assume that you have never been in the service.

Egocentric behavior does, as you say, display itself in many ways.

[Nicolas]

First of all, it heavily depends on what way you choose into the army, and what direction. A pilot will obviously not be put into service after 8 weeks. A paracommando won't. My sister is in the army but did military school first, that means years before being put into full service. So that 8 weeks might be only valid for a certain type (like standard land force soldier) of soldier in a certain army.

I never heard my sister talking about a change of attitude in the way you propose it. I heard her talking about the role of the first women in the Belgian army, her sports achievements during training, the other women during training, going out during training...but not the change in attitude. It always appeared to me that training and selection was about selecting those with the right attitude and perfecting that, rather than changing attitudes. With the wrong attitude, I don't think you'd get far in the army. At least for my sister, training seemed to be more about sports, physical prestations and learning some techniques rather than changing attitude. You fit in or you fly out, so you'd better fit in right away. I have not spoken to military people from the USA, so I don't know how things are overthere. Nor have I spoken to other Belgian Army personnel.

It is very well possible that the opinion you've taken knowledge of has been confirmed by your experience. The interesting aspect of these subjects is that when you learn other opinions, those too can be confirmed by your experience, even in one and the same case. It's all due to the complexity and subtility of the subject.

[Nicolas]

First of all, it heavily depends on what way you choose into the army, and what direction. A pilot will obviously not be put into service after 8 weeks. I did not go into service due to rapidly deteriorating eyesight, but I did inform myself on that. A paracommando won't go into service after 8 weeks. My sister is in the army but did military school first, that means years before being put into full service. So that 8 weeks might be only valid for a certain type (like standard land force soldier) of soldier in a certain army.

I never heard my sister talking about a change of attitude in the way you propose it. I heard her talking about the role of the first women in the Belgian army, her sports achievements during training, the other women during training, going out during training...but not the change in attitude. It always appeared to me that training and selection was about selecting those with the right attitude and perfecting that, rather than changing attitudes. With the wrong attitude, I don't think you'd get far in the army unless you're willing to adjust, so one could argue that you have the "right" attitude latently in you in that case. At least for my sister, training seemed to be more about sports, physical prestations and learning some techniques rather than changing attitude. You fit in or you fly out, so you'd better fit in right away. I have not spoken to military people from the USA, so I don't know how things are overthere. Nor have I spoken to other Belgian Army personnel.

It is very well possible that the opinion you've taken knowledge of has been confirmed by your experience. The interesting aspect of these subjects is that when you learn other opinions, those too can be confirmed by your experience, even in one and the same case. It's all due to the complexity and subtility of the subject.

[darkhunter]

Each job in the military has specialized training--some schools aare only a few weeks while others can go for months...

[Halcyon Dayz]

That would be Social ethology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology#Social_ethology_and_recent_developments).
Indeed, thanks :). Does that term also count for investigating that behaviour on humans?
Some of them do.
Most notably the British zoologist Desmond Moris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Morris).
His The Naked Ape is a must read, a real eye-opener on human behaviour.

The only thing I might take exception to is that the military does not change ones character.

I think that military training has a significant affect on character.
Character is a set of habits and being in the military changes our set of habits significantly.
I didn't say it doesn't.
Your definition of character is quite different then mine, though.
Character is the basic structure of ones personality.
That what is left if you take all the superfluous stuff (like habits) out.

[coberst]

All military persons must go through basic training because basic training changes you from civilian to soldier.

[coberst]

Some of them do.
Most notably the British zoologist Desmond Moris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Morris).
His The Naked Ape is a must read, a real eye-opener on human behaviour.


I didn't say it doesn't.
Your definition of character is quite different then mine, though.
Character is the basic structure of ones personality.
That what is left if you take all the superfluous stuff (like habits) out.

One significant advantage engineering, physics and much of the natural sciences has is that they speak in mathematical terms. The individuals often speak in formulas or mathematical verbiage that is clear and concise and understandable by all the members. The use of every day words like habit can be confusing because of a lack of clarity. One might also think of attitude as a proper way to describe what I call habit.

What is character? Character is the network of habits that permeate all the intentional acts of an individual.

I am not using the word habit in the way we often do, as a technical ability existing apart from our wishes. These habits are an intimate and fundamental part of our selves. They are representations of our will. They rule our will, working in a coordinated way they dominate our way of acting. These habits are the results of repeated, intelligently controlled, actions.

Habits also control the formation of ideas as well as physical actions. We cannot perform a correct action or a correct idea without having already formed correct habits. “Reason pure of all influence from prior habit is a fiction.” “The medium of habit filters all material that reaches our perception and thought.” “Immediate, seemingly instinctive, feeling of the direction and end of various lines of behavior is in reality the feeling of habits working below direct consciousness.” “Habit means special sensitiveness or accessibility to certain classes of stimuli, standing predilections and aversions, rather than bare recurrence of specific acts. It means will.”

Because each job requires a different type of character a journalist would make a lousy military officer and vice versa.

What might be the ideal character traits of these two professions? It seems that the military officer should be smart, well trained, obedient and brave. The journalist should be smart, well trained, critical and intellectually honest. The journalist must have well-developed intellectual character traits and be skillful in critical thinking. The military officer should be trained to act according to a distinct program in critical circumstances.

The officer’s behavior in each conceivable circumstance should follow precisely a well-established code of action. The officer is trained to follow well-established algorithms in every circumstance. Even those instances wherein the officer is authorized to deviate from standard procedure are clearly defined algorithms. The officer deviates from established behavior only when absolutely necessary and that ad hoc behavior should follow along prescribed avenues. The officer obeys all commands without critical analysis except in very unusual circumstances. Bravery and obedience are the two most desired character traits of a military officer.

Britannica specifies that attitude is “a predisposition to classify objects and events and to react to them with some degree of evaluative consistency.”

If I consult my inner self I cannot focus upon an attitude but can infer such an attitude based on behavior. If I wish to become conscious of my intuition I can through observation of behavior describe the attitude, which, in turn, allows me to ascertain the nature of my intuition.

When a mother tells her son “you must change your attitude”. The son cannot change the attitude directly but the son must change his intuition from which the inferred attitude emanates. This does become a bit convoluted but in essence when we wish to change an attitude we are saying that our intuition must be modified. We can modify intuition only through habit directed by our will.

“Were it not for the continued operation of all habits in every act, no such thing as character would exist. There would be simply a bundle, an untied bundle at that, of isolated acts. Character is the interpenetrating of habits. If each habit in an insulated compartment and operated without affecting or being affected by others, character would not exist. That is conduct would lack unity being only juxtaposition of disconnected reactions to separated situations. But since environments overlap, since situations are continuous and those remote from one another contain like elements, a continuous modification of habits by one another is constantly going on.”

My understanding of character and the quotations concerning the nature of character are taken from “Habits and Will” by John Dewey http://www.alexandercenter.com/jd/johndeweyhabits.html.

[Halcyon Dayz]

You cutting and pasting again.

And pontificating, of not proselytising.

Habit (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=habit)

[Nicolas]

All military persons must go through basic training because basic training changes you from civilian to soldier.

If you start with military school as part of your secondary education, you cannot identify something as an 8 week training overhere.

Nor do you when you follow military school at University level (as many pilots do).

[Nicolas]

Most notably the British zoologist Desmond Moris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Morris).
His The Naked Ape is a must read, a real eye-opener on human behaviour.


You're the second one in one week to say that to me :)

[Tinaa]

One's personality is made of three factors: affect (emotions), behavior, and cognitive (thinking).

Military training may change one's behavior and thinking, for the most part, to the better. Most humans tend to socialize with others who are similar in thoughts, actions and deeds. The military forms a cohesive group by reinforcing behavior that protects the group.

A totally egocentric person would not do well in the military or life in general.

Different cultures have different ideas about defines a person with "good character."

[Monique]

I am weak... I cannot resist temptation...:razz:

ahhhhh Tinaa.... you use logic??? What must you thinking?? ;)

[HenrikOlsen]

As I see it, military indoctrination has one fundamental purpose and effect and all others are secondary to that.
It's about making a person willing to kill another on command, despite a lifetime of learning that it's wrong.

[Celestial Mechanic]

This is from the script of a soon-to-be remade film:

[The General takes the stage standing before a giant American flag]

[General] Listen up you maggots! You've just spent eight weeks in basic training gaining an introduction to certain skills and knowledge required by all military people. Primarily, however, these eight weeks are designed to change your attitudes dramatically.

One aspect of this attitude change focuses upon changing the natural egocentric attitude into a sociocentric attitude. The people who study such matters seem to conclude that the normal human reaction is generally irrationally egocentric. The military wishes to change that irrational egocentric behavior into an irrational sociocentric behavior with the military as the social group which replaces the individual ego. I think we have succeeded. Have we?

[Recruits] Yes sir!!!

[General] I can't hear you...

[Recruits] YES SIR!!!

[General] Say it like you've got a paradigm!

[Recruits] YES SIR!!!!

[General] When your grandchildren ask you what you did in the war for Critical Thinking, are you going to want to tell them you spent the war shovelling Sartre in Louisiana?

[Recruits] NO SIR!!!!

[General] Dismissed!!!

[Maksutov]

As I see it, military indoctrination has one fundamental purpose and effect and all others are secondary to that.
It's about making a person willing to kill another on command, despite a lifetime of learning that it's wrong.Very true. Ask any soldier what their primary mission in the Army is, and they will reply, "To kill the enemy!" If you're wearing the right kind of uniform, the reply will be, "TO KILL THE ENEMY, SIR!"

Still chuckling at Celestial Mechanic's general's address. It's even funnier if one imagines Gen. George S. Patton (of course, hence the big US flag backdrop) delivering it. Amazing that someone who can methodically disassemble an ATMer's pet hypothesis would have such a good sense of humor! Then again, having a good sense of humor definitely helps when dealing with ATMers and HBs. :)

[Maksutov]

Scene: somewhere in North Africa, 1943.Omar: OK, George, you've gone too far this time!
George: What do you mean?
Omar: The French attaché has lodged a former protest with Ike about your Sartre remark. They're really mad, George!
George: Well, Brad, you know what I always say, I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me.
Omar: There you go again, George! (sighs)
George: Listen, the object of war is not to die for CT but to make the other poor dumb ******* die for ct.
Omar: I know, George, I know, but all anyone seems to remember was when you hit that soldier in the infirmary with your Kuhn book.
George: Just trying to knock some CT sense into the coward. Imagine all those real soldiers around him sliced to bits by the cters, and he's holding his head and spouting quotes from Camus.
Omar: That was still no reason to treat him like that.
George: Brad, an Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team. This individual, irrational egocentric behavior, and heroic stuff are pure horse (manure)! I thought we solved that problem during basic training.
Omar: Everyone in this unit passed their Irrational Sociocentric Behavior test with flying colors.
George: You know I always do everything I ask of those I command. I need to take that course. What's the instructor's phone number?
Omar: Well, that's the problem, George. He packed up and left with his book last night. Turns out he was using an assumed name.
George: Well, find him, dammit! And when we get back him here, I am personally going to give that paper pusher a course in CT he'll never forget!
Omar: We'll get right on it, George! (picks up phone)...

[coberst]

If you start with military school as part of your secondary education, you cannot identify something as an 8 week training overhere.

Nor do you when you follow military school at University level (as many pilots do).

Good point.

[coberst]

You cutting and pasting again.

And pontificating, of not proselytising.

Habit (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=habit)

Dewey is very good about explaining what character is and how it is formed. It is a very important concept and well worth the time to study.

[coberst]

One's personality is made of three factors: affect (emotions), behavior, and cognitive (thinking).

Military training may change one's behavior and thinking, for the most part, to the better. Most humans tend to socialize with others who are similar in thoughts, actions and deeds. The military forms a cohesive group by reinforcing behavior that protects the group.

A totally egocentric person would not do well in the military or life in general.

Different cultures have different ideas about defines a person with "good character."

I have never been clear as to the difference between personality and character. I think Dewey gives a very clear essay on character but I have never seen one like it about personality.

[coberst]

As I see it, military indoctrination has one fundamental purpose and effect and all others are secondary to that.
It's about making a person willing to kill another on command, despite a lifetime of learning that it's wrong.

If you walk through a military base that is a basic training facility you will notice that most of the activity is marching. Marching is apparently a very effective means for training individuals to respond to commands automatically.

I suspect this characteristic of mindless obedience to commands is the first hurdle for the military to overcome when changing a civilian into a soldier.

[Nicolas]

Very true. Ask any soldier what their primary mission in the Army is, and they will reply, "To kill the enemy!" If you're wearing the right kind of uniform, the reply will be, "TO KILL THE ENEMY, SIR!"


I disagree. I've never heard that overhere. I thought the official answer should be "to serve the country", "to protect the civilians" or "to follow orders". That last one is an interesting answer of course :).

And most of the time, if a soldier is asked what they do in the army (and you hear that question a lot in the train on sunday or friday :)), they don't start about killing the enemy but more practically, what they do in the army. "I'm in the land forces. I'm in a platoon of early recognition troups. My main task is to watch the flanks while we're going into enemy territory. I've only done that in practice, but it's very likely that in May we'll be sent to [location]. (ôh I see, and now you lads are going home for the weekend? :))".

[Maksutov]

I should have been more specific: The U.S. Army.

http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/figuren/k034.gif

[Nicolas]

:)

I can't give an opinion on that, as I've never spoken to US soldiers about the subject.

[Gillianren]

I have.

If you ask my boyfriend what he's doing in the Army, he will say that he is saving money to buy a house. He's actually currently in extended training (today, he blew something up, then went to a museum!), but he still finds the military rather tedious, really. He doesn't want to kill anyone. He's not even particularly interested in protecting/serving his country. He just didn't know what else to do right out of high school.

A friend of his from his old unit felt much the same way. In fact, none of the military people to whom I've ever spoken have expressed much interest in killing people. My dad was a twenty-year man in the Air Force, most of it stationed in various bases around the world running radios or whatever before coming home to be (no kidding) a recruiting sergeant during the end of the Vietnam War. (He retired in August '76, a few months before I was born.) Now, I don't actually know my dad's feelings on the subject of killing people (because at age six, I wasn't inclined to ask, and then he died), but I would be greatly surprised if he'd said that was his purpose in the military. Especially given that he started at least half a dozen Boy Scout troops around the world during his years of service.

[Maksutov]

I have.

If you ask my boyfriend what he's doing in the Army, he will say that he is saving money to buy a house.[edit]I would be greatly surprised if he'd said that was his purpose in the military. Especially given that he started at least half a dozen Boy Scout troops around the world during his years of service.I guess my information was due to being involved almost exclusively with and talking to folks in the Infantry. I even had a couple of Generals give me that reply. Different strokes for different armies, corps, divisions, and services, I guess.

And don't forget what that bayonet is for: stab, stab, kill, kill.

[sarongsong]

No longer used.
...In 1973 the U.S. Army phased out mandatory bayonet training as obsolete in an age of computerized warfare... Olive-Drab (http://www.olive-drab.com/od_edged_weapons_bayonets.php)

[Maksutov]

No longer used.Au contraire. In 1987 the Army began distributing its new bayonet, the M-9, which doubles as a field knife and wire cutter. (http://In%201987%20the%20Army%20began%20distributing%20it s%20new%20bayonet,%20the%20M-9,%20which%20doubles%20as%20a%20field%20knife%20an d%20wire%20cutter.) Lack of mandatory training doesn't mean you can't procure one and be trained in its use based on a special assignment, request, etc.

[sarongsong]

D'ohh! (http://www.m9bayonet.com/buck-phrobis-m9.html)
Good one, Mak.

[ASEI]

I guess my information was due to being involved almost exclusively with and talking to folks in the Infantry. I even had a couple of Generals give me that reply. Different strokes for different armies, corps, divisions, and services, I guess.

And don't forget what that bayonet is for: stab, stab, kill, kill. And what was the point of infantry again? You're talking about it like it's not what they're supposed to be doing.

That's another thing that's always puzzled me: Take the Zarqawi bombing recently - we treat bombing the enemy as if it's clean and justifiable, but the moment it becomes suspected that infantry forces had a hand in killing him (the various CTs out there about him surviving the 500lb bombs and needing to be strangled by the ground forces that found him), we suddenly react as if it's something "morally unclean". My question: If your aim is to kill someone, does it really matter how you do it? How are infantrymen shooting people somehow "dirtier" than air force people dropping bombs on the enemy?

[coberst]

ASEI says

"If your aim is to kill someone, does it really matter how you do it? How are infantrymen shooting people somehow "dirtier" than air force people dropping bombs on the enemy?"

Good question! Is it badder to cut off their head than to drop a bomb on them?
__________________

[Nicolas]

I thnk Maksutov's issue was that the people he spoke to presented "killing" as a goal instead of a means.

On your point: they wanted to kill Zarqawi (as a means for the goal of stability in Iraq), so any method that minimizes unneccesary suffering would be a morally equal to do that in my opinion, whether it be using a laser guided bomb or a hand catapult.

btw it seems he really was alive (or dying, but anyway not stone dead) when they found him, but the way it was presented here he died while the troops were there. I have heard no stories about strangling on official news channels, only that they dropped 2 bombs and he appeared to be not fully dead when they first saw him.

[R.A.F.]

Badder????

[mid]

My question: If your aim is to kill someone, does it really matter how you do it? How are infantrymen shooting people somehow "dirtier" than air force people dropping bombs on the enemy?

Given the rather low chances of causing civilian casualities as a side effect of shooting the target from mere feet away, I'd argue it was a lot cleaner myself.

[coberst]

Better???

[Nicolas]

Better???

no, worse ;)

[coberst]

Bull!!!!

[N C More]

Bull!!!!

No, in English it's: bad, worse, and worst.

It's not really acceptable to use "badder" and "baddest", except when you happen to be singing about LeRoy Brown!

[Moose]

N.C: If I'm going to have a song stuck in my head all day, it may as well be that one, I guess. :)

[Nicolas]

the bat's bladder got badder in cold weather.
But things went better when she wrote a letter to the setter to let her get herself a shelter.

(now say that 5 times really fast ;) )

[korjik]

How many people here have actually gone through basic training? I can tell you that basic did not do all that much to change my behavior. Desert Storm of the other hand did. For all the cliche, the child who went came back a man. After I got back, I knew that whatever life would throw at me, I could handle it.

As for the op topic, as to wether someone is egocentric or not is not changed by service, but subsumed into the system. The military system can be manipulated just like a civilian one, if you want to play the game. Those who cannot learn to play by the rules do not make it through basic, so I would say that basic training doesnt so much change you from ego to social, but makes you learn when to be social.

Nicholas, at least when I was in (89-93) the US military would send pretty much everyone to 8 weeks of basic first off. Infantry and marines have (or had) a 13 week basic that emphasised more infantry training. After basic, you would go to whatever advanced school you were assigned to. As an example, I was MI so I went to language school, then to signal intel training, then a tactical sigint training school and didnt actually reach my first permanent duty station till I had been in for 15 months

[Nicolas]

thanks for that info. I don't know the details of the Belgian Army, so I don't know whether everyone gets a basic training first.

You say that you had been in for 15 months before reaching your first permanent duty station. That's something different than the 8 weeks suggested in the first post.

What you describe about not so much changing your character as filtering the right persons (and learning how to act for those willing to do that) during basic training, is the image I had from the Belgian Army as well. (yes we have an army :))

[HenrikOlsen]

Note that when I said the training was to make a person able to kill.
I didn't say it was to make killing the main purpose of life, only that it's the thing that's most in conflict with what you've learned all your previous life, end the thing that'll get you most killed if you don't learn.

[coberst]

Question for All CEOs: Can Capitalism Survive Sans War?

“The manufacture of dynamite increased from 11 tons in 1867, the year Nobel first put it on the market, to 66,500 tons in 1897…

To arm and equip mass armies required the efforts of mass industry and the munitions companies gathered under their control raw materials, mines, foundries and transportation. Markets and profits were almost limitless and they responded with fierce vigor to the incentive.” Patriotism in every country in Europe was at a fever pitch.

The “War to End All Wars” began in August 1914.

The 31 year war lasted from 1914 to 1945. After that ‘wonderful age for capitalism’ there was fear that peace might become infectious. Fortunately such was not the case.

Quotes from “The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the world before the War: 1890-1914”.

[Doodler]

Um. Yes.

War makes it easy, peace does not make it impossible.

[korjik]

No longer used.

Funny, I did bayonet training in 1989

edit: whoops, I should read the whole thread before replying. oddly enough, we didnt get our M9 bayonets till well after desert storm. maybe late 91 or sometime in 92

[Gruesome]

As I am not a CEO my opinion might not qualify, but I think it did fine in the years prior to 1914.

[Tinaa]

merged with another coberst military topic

[korjik]

Question for All CEOs: Can Capitalism Survive Sans War?

“The manufacture of dynamite increased from 11 tons in 1867, the year Nobel first put it on the market, to 66,500 tons in 1897…

To arm and equip mass armies required the efforts of mass industry and the munitions companies gathered under their control raw materials, mines, foundries and transportation. Markets and profits were almost limitless and they responded with fierce vigor to the incentive.” Patriotism in every country in Europe was at a fever pitch.

The “War to End All Wars” began in August 1914.

The 31 year war lasted from 1914 to 1945. After that ‘wonderful age for capitalism’ there was fear that peace might become infectious. Fortunately such was not the case.

Quotes from “The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the world before the War: 1890-1914”.

What is the portion of GDP that is military applications as compared to non-military? I think this whole post is wrong in its initial premise that military expendatures are necessary for economic growth

[Doodler]

What is the portion of GDP that is military applications as compared to non-military? I think this whole post is wrong in its initial premise that military expendatures are necessary for economic growth

Prior to the current fiscal monstrosity we're contending with, the percentage of GDP put forward to support war efforts through the First Gulf War had been dropping substantially, with the 1992 liberation of Kuwait running right about 1% of GDP, if memory serves.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]“The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the world before the War: 1890-1914”.
Before this thread runs aground on the shoals of politics, let me just say that I've always enjoyed Barbara Tuchman's work. Time for me to read this book again! :)

[coberst]

I am getting dizzy. Has our computer gone berserk?

[weatherc]

I am getting dizzy. Has our computer gone berserk?No. Just use some critical thinking, and I'm sure you'll be able to understand what's going on.

[coberst]

No. Just use some critical thinking, and I'm sure you'll be able to understand what's going on.

Is this management's way of saying 'get lost'? You are part of the administration I assume.

[korjik]

Prior to the current fiscal monstrosity we're contending with, the percentage of GDP put forward to support war efforts through the First Gulf War had been dropping substantially, with the 1992 liberation of Kuwait running right about 1% of GDP, if memory serves.

1991 liberation.

So, with active minor combat deployments (i.e. no national mobilization) the massive military-industrial complex was all of 1% GDP. I think that capitalism could survive without it.

[Nicolas]

Is this management's way of saying 'get lost'? You are part of the administration I assume.

It's quite simple.

This board has some moderators, those have the word "Moderator" on the left.

This board has some administrators, those have the word "Administrator" on the left.

The other members are just members, new or longtime. But they have no power whatsoever, at least no more power than you have, i.e being able to post things overhere.

So please don't assume people are admins when the board does not say they are admins. It's a wrong assumption.

But more on topic, many people here do ask things from you. Not necessarily to "get lost". Often heard wishes are

*get involved into discussion of the subjects you post here.
*open up to alternative opinions (closely related to point 1)
*step away from a lecturing tone when talking about subjects you've only studied parts of. If they're interesting to you, you can discuss them here without assuming the position of guru on the subject. Having studies one aspect of a subject is a good starting position for a discussion as well.

These are some points that give rise to negative feelings on your posts. Your posts, not your person. I hope everyone here makes that distinction. We have read your posts, but we don't know your person (at least not in a complete way). So I will not judge your person, nor say that you should get lost. What I have asked before are some of the points above, as I feel they are necessary to get a usefull discussion on the subjects raised.

And I believe that is -or should be- your goal of posting these subjects on this board: to get an interesting discussion on subjects that interest you and that allow for a huge multitude of opinions and interpretations. If there is no envronment for discussion created in a thread, it is bound to end up dead or in jest posting. I assume WeatherC's post was to be interpreted as jest, not an attack.

[weatherc]

Is this management's way of saying 'get lost'? You are part of the administration I assume.I think perhaps you are reading far more into the statement than was intended.

It's quite simple.

This board has some moderators, those have the word "Moderator" on the left.

This board has some administrators, those have the word "Administrator" on the left.

The other members are just members, new or longtime. But they have no power whatsoever, at least no more power than you have, i.e being able to post things overhere.

So please don't assume people are admins when the board does not say they are admins. It's a wrong assumption.What Nicolas said. I am neither a moderator nor an administrator, nor am I directly or indirectly affiliated with the administration of the board. My power to affect anyone's posting ability here is pretty much zero.

[Swift]

As to Cobert's post, # 62...
I do not think that capitalism requires war / military to survive, at least in the economic sense. There are multiple countries with minimal military that have strong, capitalistic economies.

A different question is how much military does a country need to survive, whether they are capitalist or socialists? As I said, there are countries currently with a very limited military, but could they survive without the presence of other countries, with a lot of military, that act as policemen?

I do not have the answer. I suspect in the current, real world, the answer is no, there is too much bad stuff around to survive without some sort of military, either your own, or someone else's.

[coberst]

No. Just use some critical thinking, and I'm sure you'll be able to understand what's going on.

You spoke in a way to indicate some knowledge of those who made the decision to change my post. Evidently you are not speaking from any more knowledge than I.

I would expect management would inform me as to why they changed my post.

Is there no adult supervision here? Who controls this microphone?

[Sp1ke]

I would expect management would inform me as to why they changed my post.

Is there no adult supervision here? Who controls this microphone?

I think you're missing the point of a discussion board, Coberst. The moderators and administrators do their best to keep things on an even keel but the idea is to have a dialogue, exchange ideas, learn from others. There is no need for "management". You control the microphone - nothing stops you from posting your opinions. It would help, as pointed out above, if you were more willing to join in a two-way discussion rather than lecturing, but you're free to do what you want (that's the point!). The moderators only step in if things seem to be getting out of hand or confused and they do their best to help us all play nicely together.

[mid]

Coberst - as far as I can tell (as a mere member) no changes were made to the text of your post; merely the thread was merged with the other ongoing discussion about the military in order to make the discussion easier to read. If there was more to it than that, then I expect you'd have heard from Tinaa directly.

As to your question, I'd suggest that you're probably being a little Americentric in the assumptions there. While the US government spends a vast amount on military operations, and this in turn helps the finances of the American arms industry (who just so happen to employ a large number of voters, other capitalist countries spend rather less. Rather a lot less; last time I looked at numbers, the US spent about as much as the rest of the world put together.

Furthermore, the arms race of the latter half of the 20th Century infamously caused the Soviet Union to spend such a large proportion of their GDP on military expenditure that the rest of their economy collapsed, and both China and North Korea continue to spend a large amount of money on military purposes. So this certainly isn't a uniquely Capitalist phenomenon.

However, the biggest question is how you'd find out. We are not, have not are not likely soon to be in a position sans war. Sure, I'm not expecting the house to be hit by a bomb before I finish this post, but there are always wars happening somewhere or other, those wars will require weapons, and in a number of cases for a bunch of well-trained guys in white UN helmets to sort it all out. So I don't expect the arms industry to collapse any time soon.

[coberst]

Without supervision there is only anarchy, reason cannot prevail. Apparently anyone can move posts about as they see fit. Others may hijack threads without a second thought, others ask questions not to faciitate learning but to start verbal combat. This is a fourm without rational control.

[Nicolas]

Coberst,

What is the reason behind you assuming that this board is flooded by fraudulent moderators who alter the content of your posts? I have never seen anything like that happen overhere. Threads were merged, but content was left untouched. And again, only those titled "moderator" or "administrator" have this position, all the rest is a "member" like me and you, with no further power.

Without supervision there is only anarchy, reason cannot prevail. Apparently anyone can move posts about as they see fit. Others may hijack threads without a second thought, others ask questions not to faciitate learning but to start verbal combat. This is a fourm without rational control.

There is solid supervision on this board. Not anyone can move posts about as they see fit. ONly moderators and admins can do that. In this case, because there were multiple posts on nearly the same subject. Merging is done to keep order in the board, not as a sign of anarchy.

Maybe you should reflect on why your threads were "hijacked", or why your threads were questioned by board members. Members are interested in discussion, but you did not engage into discussion. What's left for them to do other than question your way of handling the subjects or talk about less related subjects? That covers both the "hijack" and "verbal combat" remark.

I think you're positioning yourself in a martyr position (and quite a paranoid one), though the source of trouble lies in the way you construct and maintain the threads you start. So I suggest a thorough reflection on what your goals of these threads are and whether they can be achieved in the way you handle them at the moment, before putting the blame on a fraudulent anarchy that in my opinion does not exist on this board.

[coberst]

Without supervision there is only anarchy, reason cannot prevail. Apparently anyone can move posts about as they see fit. Others may hijack threads without a second thought, others ask questions not to faciitate learning but to start verbal combat. This is a fourm without rational control

[Nicolas]

I assume this was an accidental double post? :)

If not, see above.

[mid]

Unless, of course, this is a rather relevant metaphor for how, if we don't have the 'supervision' of Governmental support of the military support industries, the 'reason' of capitalism can't continue.

I'm reading too much into things again, aren't I? So I'll go back to pointing out that capitalist nations, with the possible exception of the US, don't appear at first glance to spend any more on their military as a percentage of GDP than communist nations.

[R.A.F.]

Apparently anyone can move posts about as they see fit.

If you believe that they have been moved without reason, then you should contact the administration and complain. The open board is not the appropriate place to do that.

Others may hijack threads without a second thought...

Once again, you can complain to the proper "authorities" if you perceive a problem. (Personally, I tend to get a "little silly" strictly as a coping mechanism...it's much better than cursing.)

...others ask questions not to faciitate learning but to start verbal combat.

When you post to a science board and proceed to tell everyone how wrong they are about things, then just what would you expect the response to be???

This is a fourm without rational control

Here's a perfect example of what I just stated. First, you tell us that we need to be a certain way to be critical thinkers...now you've "progressed" to the point where the entire board is (in your view) irrational.

For someone who "preaches" critical thinking with every post, you seem to have an inability to "practice it" yourself.

[N C More]

Here's a perfect example of what I just stated. First, you tell us that we need to be a certain way to be critical thinkers...now you've "progressed" to the point where the entire board is (in your view) irrational.

For someone who "preaches" critical thinking with every post, you seem to have an inability to "practice it" yourself.

Amen! :clap:

[Maksutov]

Is this management's way of saying 'get lost'? You are part of the administration I assume.Actually, all of us here are paid government disinformation agents posing as paid NASA disinformation agents posing as BAUT members. Some of us have the label "Moderator" just to confuse those few who are not members of this select group.

http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/figuren/a100.gif

[Maksutov]

You spoke in a way to indicate some knowledge of those who made the decision to change my post. Evidently you are not speaking from any more knowledge than I.

I would expect management would inform me as to why they changed my post. What change? I didn't notice any, except a 50% decrease in redundancy.

Is there no adult supervision here? Who controls this microphone?I agree. Something must be done about all these posters asking you questions instead of just accepting what you write at face value.

http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/konfus/a040.gif

[Moose]

Actually, all of us here are paid government disinformation agents posing as paid NASA disinformation agents posing as BAUT members. Some of us have the label "Moderator" just to confuse those few who are not members of this select group.

http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/figuren/a100.gif

Speak for yourself, Mak. I happen to be a paid Canadian (provincial) government misinformation agent posing as a paid government disinformation agent posing as a paid NASA disinformation agent posing as a Canadian BAUT member.

It's a lot like being a pgdapaapNdapaaBm, only with 33% more duplicity. We also get health and dental, so even with the exhange rate, it's a pretty sharp deal.

( :liar: )

[N C More]

It's a lot like being a pgdapaapNdapaaBm, only with 33% more duplicity. We also get health and dental, so even with the exhange rate, it's a pretty sharp deal.


What! You Canadian misinfo/disinfo agents get dental? That's it, I'm moving to Canada!

[Maksutov]

[edit]I would expect management would inform me as to why they changed my post...It's right here. (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=761381&postcount=66) Brief and right to the point.

[Moose]

What! You Canadian misinfo/disinfo agents get dental? That's it, I'm moving to Canada!

I'll be sure to put in a good word for you at the next recruitment drive. :D

[Gillianren]

Me, too, Moose. Me, too.

Look, Coberst, when we try to discuss your ideas, you ignore us to pontificate. You've been given several specific examples of how you're flatly wrong, and you've ignored them. Why should we listen to anything you say, when this happens on every thread you start?

[Swift]

Coberst,
Instead of complaining about our behavior (and we are adults, but we do this for fun too), why don't you actually discuss the topic you brought up. I brought up some counter-points in post 76 (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=761540&postcount=76) - do you have any responses?

And before you complain too strongly about our behavior, it is also considered bad form on this board to keep bringing up the same topic again and again; I refer particularly to all of your threads about Critical Thinking. I know you said you want to introduce it to newbees - well why not then add it to your old threads?