[HN Gopher] US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]
___________________________________________________________________
US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]
Author : jtlicardo
Score : 118 points
Date : 2023-07-29 17:32 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (armyoe.files.wordpress.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (armyoe.files.wordpress.com)
| bjelkeman-again wrote:
| As someone who has led companies for several decades, the
| foreword bullet points aren't half bad (in my words, the context
| is different and not everything translates directly, mistakes
| aren't so often deadly in business) :
|
| - know your business
|
| - teach your team
|
| - be a good listener
|
| - treat your team with dignity and respect
|
| - know the fundamentals of your business
|
| - set a good example
|
| - establish a positive culture
|
| I went through a year of officers training in the Swedish army
| before my first job, after a year as a conscript. (Quite a
| different thing than other armed forces, Sweden being neutral,
| and no prospect of going to war on foreign soil, for example). I
| probably learned more things about leading people in those years,
| than I did in the following ten years. Not everyone was a good
| teacher, but there were some excellent leadership teachers there.
| nine_zeros wrote:
| The primary difference between army leadership and corporate
| leadership is that corporate "leadership" is more about saving
| their own position and job.
| zdw wrote:
| Another good book in this vein is "Turn the ship around!":
| https://davidmarquet.com/turn-the-ship-around-book/
|
| Which is written by a navy submarine captain, about how he turned
| one of the lowest performing crews into a high performing crews
| that went on to become leaders elsewhere.
|
| It really spoke to helping align motivation, and making a path
| forward for success, which actually is somewhat easier in the
| military because much of the career progression is
| study/competency based (at least around submarine tasks). This
| well defined progression is less so outside the military, which I
| think is why we see so much job hopping.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "much of the career progression"
|
| Aren't there also many dead ends in the military?
| aliasxneo wrote:
| > which actually is somewhat easier in the military because
| much of the career progression is study/competency based
|
| This is an interesting point. Being an ex-submariner, I do miss
| the unambiguous nature of knowing precisely what I needed to do
| next in terms of career progression. We had manuals for
| everything (big thick ones on the nuclear side), and anyone
| that was ahead of you had already learned what you were
| studying, so in (most) cases, you could ask questions and get
| reasonable answers. Everything was laid out in qualifications
| and each qualification had a static set of requirements that
| were well documented.
| osigurdson wrote:
| I don't have any military experience but in my opinion leadership
| is simply about "knowing where you are going" (literally or
| figuratively).
|
| If you don't possess this, you are not a leader regardless of
| position, authority or how you "carry yourself".
| mattgrice wrote:
| "Leading Marines" is one of the best leadership books I've ever
| read.
| https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCWP%206-11%2...
| photochemsyn wrote:
| The text "Mastering The Art of War" (Liu Ji & Zhuge Liang, Thomas
| Cleary translation) has some interesting advice for determining
| if someone is suitable for a leadership position:
|
| > "Hard though it be to know people, there are ways.
|
| First is to question them concerning right and wrong, to observe
| their ideas.
|
| Second is to exhaust all their arguments, to see how they change.
|
| Third is to consult with them about strategy, to see how
| perceptive they are.
|
| Fourth is to announce that there is trouble, to see how brave
| they are.
|
| Fifth is to get them drunk, to observe their nature.
|
| Sixth is to present them with the prospect of gain, to see how
| modest they are.
|
| Seventh is to give them a task to do within a specific time, to
| see how trustworthy they are."
| warner25 wrote:
| It's interesting to see civilians looking to the military for
| leadership and management ideas. I'm a career Army officer, and
| when I was a young officer I looked to _civilian_ books and other
| resources for management advice. Over the years, however, I 've
| come appreciate more what the Army has written on the topic.
|
| Here's the current (2019) version of the Army's doctrine on
| leadership, if anyone wants to see how it has evolved and what's
| being taught today:
| https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN20039-ADP_6-...
|
| And here's the companion guide for "developing leaders:"
| https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN36735-FM_6-2...
| duxup wrote:
| Quality leadership is very rare. I can understand looking
| anywhere for information / inspiration.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Historically, leadership has always been a military thing. This
| was really the time in which one had to lead many men and,
| furthermore, when the circumstances meant they would
| instinctively have pushed back on what was asked of them.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Military leadership has a great deal to recommend it.
|
| For one thing, their principal mission is to deal with the
| unexpected, and come out on top.
|
| That's nothing to sneeze at.
|
| In the civilian world, first responders and mobsters are
| probably analogous, as most corporate leadership is about
| consistency and predictability.
|
| First responders, however, only have goals to stop the
| unexpected, or repair damage. Mobsters figure out how to take
| advantage of the unexpected, and maybe make some hay from it.
|
| I suspect you could relate.
| gumby wrote:
| Love that it starts here:
|
| > Demonstrate tactical and technical competence.
|
| > Know your business. Soldiers expect their leaders to be
| tactically and technically competent. Soldiers want to follow
| those leaders who are confident of their own abilities. _To be
| confident a leader must first be competent._ Trust between
| soldiers and their leaders is based on the secure knowledge that
| the leader is competent.
|
| (emphasis mine)
|
| If only this advice were followed in other spheres (and is it
| observed in the Army or is it aspirational?)
| [deleted]
| mter wrote:
| Nothing the military puts out on leadership should be taken very
| seriously because of the UCMJ and because unhappy people can't
| quit with serious repercussions.
|
| Anyone can make a team be productive when you can overwork
| people, if things don't get done you threaten to take their money
| and threaten a demotion, no one can quit to get away from you,
| and there is a steady stream of bodies to use.
|
| Civilian leaders have to actually balance keeping people happy
| and getting things done.
| wusher wrote:
| On the flip side, try leading a squad of four soldiers who
| don't want to be there. You can't fire them. You can't demote
| them. If you rely on authoritarianism, what happens when they
| say "No". Are you going to try to get them arrested court
| martialed because they refused an order to pick up brass?
| You'll be laughed out of command.
|
| You have to motivate them and make them want to get the mission
| done. It's far more challenging than any leadership I've done
| in the civilian world.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Sounds a bit like parenting!
| raptorraver wrote:
| Friend of mine said he has learned way more about leadership
| from boy scouts than from army.
| brightlancer wrote:
| "What is the difference between the Cub Scouts and the
| military? Bzzzzzt! Cub Scouts don't have heavy artillery!" -
| _Good Morning Vietnam_
| Slava_Propanei wrote:
| [dead]
| toss1 wrote:
| I worked with military leaders and grew up under them. They
| will tell you immediately that your take is 100% wrong.
|
| Here's what they told me about how that idea is just plain
| wrong.
|
| No one in the military gets compliance or advances by threat of
| UCMJ or other discipline.
|
| It ALL must be earned in front of your group. The leader is
| absolutely reliant on the members of his team and lead group,
| both for success of the mission and for his/her own position.
| Good leaders motivate those under their command by good example
| and good decisions. When this happens, everyone down the chain
| of command does their best to add value. When the commander
| gives a new directive. the 1st officer then steps up and starts
| adding details, and more all the way down the line to the
| lowest grunt.
|
| In contrast, the worst thing that can happen to a commander is
| that s/he loses the respect of their subordinates.
|
| Then, when s/he gives a new directive, the 1st officer and on
| down just say "yup, do what the commander said"; they do the
| absolute minimum and _stop adding value_.
|
| At that minute, the chain on down is fully f'kd and doomed to
| fail, along with that segment of the commander's career. And
| yet the commander can do zero about it. Everyone is 'making the
| required effort', and no one is breaking any rules. But no one
| is adding any value and the commander cannot get it done
| her/himself. And trying to invoke UCMJ threats just makes it
| backfire worse.
|
| That conclusion is easy to draw, but it is also exactly wrong.
| Which is why good military leaders often do exceptionally well
| when they move into the private sector.
| infamouscow wrote:
| Lieutenants that "lead" the way you're imagining never see the
| rank of Captain. They typically receive an early separation
| with a general discharge that stick with them for life, or get
| reassigned to a desk where they remain until the end of their
| contract.
| intelVISA wrote:
| > Anyone can make a team be productive when you can overwork
| people, if things don't get done you threaten to take their
| money and threaten a demotion, no one can quit to get away from
| you, and there is a steady stream of bodies to use.
|
| Seems to be working well for AWS and their notorious H1B
| platoons.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| This is incorrect post Vietnam
|
| The US is an all volunteer force and has to constantly and
| persistently provide a compelling alternative to other jobs -
| so in one sense, it's an employer like any other.
|
| If it were as domineering as you insinuate (it isn't) then
| nobody would sign up and/or we would be admitting very
| destitute or people with no options, which isn't the case.
| dctoedt wrote:
| Just curious: Have you served (in the military)?
| mter wrote:
| Yes, 02-05, OEF/OIF 11b got out as an E4.
|
| I was incredibly unimpressed with military leadership. You
| can read about my old BC if you're interested:
| https://journalnow.com/colonels-wife-in-middle-of-
| military-w...
| monocasa wrote:
| Oof, yeah, I don't blame you for having that opinion then.
| That tour/MOS is just about peak shit show from a
| leadership perspective.
| dctoedt wrote:
| Re your battalion commander: "Mrs. Colonel" -- and for that
| matter "Mrs. E-9" -- and their husbands are a longstanding
| problem, but as far as I could tell* in my day, it was just
| a minor irritant. No organization is flawless, and you'll
| find d[*]ckheads, with and without spousal attachments, in
| mid- and senior management in most walks of life.
|
| * _Grew up in the USAF, served in the USN_
| psunavy03 wrote:
| This explains a lot. You're entitled to your opinion, and
| I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but you're
| extrapolating what you saw to the entire military based on
| the experience of one junior enlisted member, which is . .
| . not going to lead to an accurate viewpoint.
|
| The infantry is its own beast. But most of DoD is not the
| infantry.
| GartzenDeHaes wrote:
| An E6 I knew started making some official complaints
| because a colonel was sleeping with his wife (also an E6).
| The colonel's wife sat him down and told him, "(the
| colonel) is going to make general soon" so you should just
| put up with it and stop causing problems.
| psunavy03 wrote:
| As a veteran in technology with 20 years active and reserve
| service, this is 100 percent ignorant, prejudiced, and
| offensive. Typical arrogant take along the lines of "those poor
| military people only joined because they had no other options."
|
| Unhappy people also can't quit their civ jobs without serious
| repercussions. Losing your paycheck and medical is not nothing.
| And I can say that I've seen just as much stupidity and bad
| leadership in the private sector as I ever saw in uniform, as
| well as outstanding leadership in both.
|
| You sound like someone who either had a bad experience in
| uniform and is extrapolating that to the entire DoD, or you
| never served and you're spouting off what you read on the
| internet.
|
| Edit: I see it's the first. I'm sorry that happened to you, but
| this is still a very blinkered take that over-weights your own
| experiences as being applicable across the board.
| HybridCurve wrote:
| This is a bit of a biased take. The military uses a purely
| authoritarian system of management which is entirely different
| from anything in a civilian occupation. There really is no free
| choice in an authoritarian system and failure to follow lawful
| orders results in strict penalties. Having bad leaders in an
| authoritarian system (there are many in the military)
| effectively amplifies the problem they create which is likely
| where this bias comes into play.
|
| Leadership in the military works different than in other
| institutions. It is one of the _only_ systems that I know of
| where authority is bound with responsibility. As a leader you
| are held to account for your actions and the actions of your
| subordinates because of your authority over them(IMO police
| should be held to _at least_ this standard if not higher as
| they are granted permission to assault, detain or use lethal
| force against anyone as they see fit). It is common for NCOs to
| be reprimanded for the failings of the subordinates because it
| is often characterized that the leader failed them because they
| did not train or oversee them properly. There is some fault
| tolerance built in (with leaders spot checking leaders below
| them by checking their subordinates) but the system will break
| down if you have multiple levels of failed leaders within the
| chain of command.
|
| The truth in the military though, is that this authority is
| mostly an illusion. _There are many terrible leaders that do
| not understand this._ They believe once you attain a position
| you are entitled to give whatever orders you like and that
| people cannot refuse them. This is true in civilian life as
| well as military. However, a good leader knows that their
| subordinates _grant_ them authority over them. Understanding
| that, this is where much of the military leadership philosophy
| comes into play: lead by example, taking care of your team,
| morale, etc. These things are of much more critical importance
| in military roles because of the levels of risk, tension, and
| stress are often very high.
| gcoakes wrote:
| > Having bad leaders in an authoritarian system (there are
| many in the military) effectively amplifies the problem they
| create which is likely where this bias comes into play.
|
| Additionally, good leaders in an authoritarian system can be
| more effective. It's just that no one wants to make the
| gamble for society at large.
|
| It's more or less necessary for grunts where ultimately
| someone will be mandating another endangers themselves. I
| don't think modern society has enough bloodthirsty people to
| field a military completely composed of willing participants.
| We do have enough that think they're bloodthirsty to field
| our "voluntary" forces.
| daweyp wrote:
| [flagged]
| monocasa wrote:
| There's also the opposite pressure. As a CO, you can demote
| people, but they're still under your command. To be effective
| you can't just rely on shedding dead weight like in the
| civilian sector. You're stuck with the subordinates you get
| more or less, so to hit your goals you practically have to
| actually invest in your subordinates, mainly by coaching and
| mentoring them.
|
| And you can quiet quit in the military just as easily as on the
| civilian side, maybe easier. For the most part you won't get
| demoted for not giving a shit. You just won't get any more
| promotions, and you might eventually be not given another
| contract if you suck enough.
|
| There's shit leadership in every org, but I've found former
| military leadership to have a little bit better batting average
| on internal team growth than purely civilian leadership.
| morkalork wrote:
| How would you compare the whole chain of command aspect? I
| worked with an ex-military guy in a small company (just under
| 100 headcount size) and his ideas about how a rigid hierarchy
| was supposed to work often clashed with the horizontal/start-
| up style of management everyone else had.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| I've seen that too. Especially in situations where a team
| has specialized skills, and are not easily replaceable. If
| you treat them as subordinates instead of peers who need
| direction on the big picture (and reminders that profit has
| to be balanced with cool work ideas), then you will sink
| the ship. But what I usually see happen is someone else in
| management sees what is going on and gives them a silent
| demotion with pay. They get sidelined before they cause too
| much damage amd everyone just ignores them until they mess
| up bad enough to let go without worrying about a lawsuit.
| csa wrote:
| > How would you compare the whole chain of command thing?
|
| Not op, but...
|
| It depends on how "ex" this vet was and what his MOS was.
| Specifically:
|
| 1. A lot of modern military leadership (esp. in the
| battlefield) is about giving the folks on the frontlines
| (figuratively and literally) the information and autonomy
| they need to make the best decisions for the mission. Some
| older vets may not have experienced this shift.
|
| 2. Some MOSes lend themselves to a strict hierarchy and
| SOPs, often because it's just prudent for the job at hand.
| Others are not as highly structured.
| mter wrote:
| You have to treat your NCO/officers like humans, but there's
| no need to care about your joes. Tell joe to get things done
| and they can't stop until it's done or they get extra duty.
| If they refuse/complain? Article 15. And no one is going to
| risk requesting court martial instead of just getting the
| article 15 so commands have pretty wide latitude to do
| whatever they want.
|
| > To be effective you can't just rely on shedding dead weight
| like in the civilian sector.
|
| You can though. You shuffle the complete duds/ineffective
| people off to S&T or an ops shop where they can't get anyone
| killed. You micromanage the unmotivated and threaten with
| article 15s. The completely unfit? They're "encouraged" to be
| failure to adapt or to go AWOL.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| In my experience senior NCOs are worth their weight in gold.
| Officers above a captain will vary. The bad ones are toxic.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| And yet there's a wide gulf between the leadership
| effectiveness of the NATO-trained Ukrainian armed forces and
| their Russian opponents.
|
| In both armies, you can't quit without serious repercussions.
| Yet soldiers in one army punch well above their weight class,
| while the others dig in for dear life and lob artillery at
| random civilian areas. Leadership is why all armies are _not_
| the same, any more than corporations, schools, churches, or
| Scout troops are.
| Slava_Propanei wrote:
| [dead]
| jelkand wrote:
| I think you would be surprised. There are a lot of concepts
| that cross over--servant leadership, trusting subordinates with
| expertise, setting expectations of "what" or "why" and letting
| your subordinates figure out "how."
|
| Your point is valid that those in the military can't just quit,
| but there is a world of difference between motivated and
| trusting subordinates and those just going through the motions
| because they have to. (Same story in software engineers!)
|
| Now, to be clear, the military regularly and routinely fails at
| the leadership principles they proscribe, but the principles
| are still good.
| pyrale wrote:
| > Civilian leaders have to actually balance keeping people
| happy and getting things done.
|
| I have seen civilian managers actually succeed while having
| both unhappy teams and failed projects. I don't know the
| military enough to make a viable comparison, but I would
| certainly not say that most private companies have a good
| control of their management system.
|
| That being said, I have seen good managers too. But even then,
| their organizations (and, sometimes, themselves) had a lot of
| trouble replicating this success.
| batch12 wrote:
| If you can't lead effectively, you can't complete the mission.
| Fear only gets you so far.
| aic5 wrote:
| Agree, context is key here. Leadership ain't a one-size-fits-
| all deal. Military and civilian jobs are like apples and
| oranges at times. Military leaders gotta shape up their team
| with what they've got. In private business, bosses can usually
| swap folks in and out based on their performance. So, comparing
| these two is a bit like comparing apples to bowling balls.
|
| A leader's worth ain't just about their style--it's about
| getting results. The Military needs to run a tight ship, while
| a manager at a startup might want fresh ideas and risk-takers.
| Military folks might be better at building a team because
| they're drilled to be disciplined and unified. But that doesn't
| mean civilian leaders are lacking necessarily.
|
| It does not make sense to use the same tools in the two
| settings. Some folks have found ex-military bosses to be good
| at growing a team and their careers. There are good and bad
| leaders everywhere. Let's not box leaders into military or
| civilian corners, and judge 'em on their own merits and how
| effective they are.
| sublinear wrote:
| > Civilian leaders have to actually balance keeping people
| happy and getting things done.
|
| I disagree. There are plenty of workers who don't respond
| productively to being treated well. Many take advantage and
| play games to avoid work. Being nice doesn't change anything.
|
| What gets things done is spelling everything out. All roles and
| responsibilities are crystal clear. Commitment to agreed upon
| schedules and plans is required. Only then can people be
| genuinely happy with their team. Leave the sentiments and
| emotion out of it. Fairness and transparency are the way.
| Anything less creates an environment of toxic positivity and
| stupid power struggles.
| watwut wrote:
| Schedules and plans in software engineering bring neither
| clearness nor happiness.
| sublinear wrote:
| Damn I also disagree with this.
|
| Schedules are more than deadlines. As long as progress is
| being made and what's being delivered stays on a similar
| timeline with other dependent projects, it's fine.
|
| Plans are more than implementation details. If the solution
| meets requirements, it's fine.
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _Nothing the military puts out on leadership should be taken
| very seriously_...
|
| ...unless you read it and think about it first.
|
| nor should blanket criticisms be leveled in the same
| circumstance.
| sockaddr wrote:
| Yup. You can even put lead in their family's water on base and
| there isn't shit they can do about it. Leadership is easy in a
| system when broadly accepted ethical and moral norms don't
| factor into your decision making.
| beardyw wrote:
| > Civilian leaders have to actually balance keeping people
| happy and getting things done.
|
| Yes, I'd call that management.
| scrum-treats wrote:
| I agree. This is some cult leadership stuff. There's a reason
| why people are not joining the military, and it is similar to
| why people are abandoning religion (i.e., it's a cult, where
| the objective is continuous exploitation of lower level
| persons).
| aethros wrote:
| There's an argument to be made that the military employs
| socialization tactics often found in cults, such as group
| mentality--I'll be the first to concede that. But the notion
| that the military's 'objective' is the "continuous
| exploitation of lower level persons" is utter nonsense.
|
| The objective of the U.S. Military is to fight and win wars.
| There's been a lot of social science put into the military on
| how best to accomplish that. Much of that science is on
| leadership and how to organize groups into effective teams.
|
| A brief skimming of many of these texts clearly highlight how
| tactics like overworking subordinates, threatening troops,
| and other intimidation tactics have terrible consequences in
| the long term. The most effective leaders care for and
| inspire their subordinates, which yields more cohesive teams
| and higher productivity. The military teaches this
| constantly.
| scrum-treats wrote:
| > But the notion that the military's 'objective' is the
| "continuous exploitation of lower level persons" is utter
| nonsense.
|
| Is it?
|
| > The objective of the U.S. Military is to fight and win
| wars.
|
| Is it?
|
| > The most effective leaders care for and inspire their
| subordinates, which yields more cohesive teams and higher
| productivity. The military teaches this constantly.
|
| The military programs people, like hypnosis + operant
| conditioning, to respond instantly and consistently to
| stimuli.
|
| There are higher levels of leadership that use more
| sophisticated mechanisms, and there are great leaders in
| the military no doubt. For sure I can say this. Some of the
| most intelligent, mindful persons in leadership hold
| advanced military positions.
|
| However, the majority of military is not in the upper
| echelons of the power hierarchy. And the majority of
| leaders in the military do not fall in this category of
| exceptionalism. This is to say, the majority of people are
| located at or near the bottom. And guess what happens at or
| near the bottom? "Continuous exploitation of lower level
| persons."
|
| And when those persons leave the military and are given
| leadership positions in corporate institutions, guess how
| they lead? You already described it: "... overworking
| subordinates, threatening troops, and other intimidation
| tactics have terrible consequences in the long term."
| aethros wrote:
| > the majority of military is not in the upper echelons
| of the power hierarchy. And the majority of leaders in
| the military do not fall in this category of
| exceptionalism.
|
| You're making a correlation that the best leaders are at
| the top, but that's not the case. Furthermore, you don't
| need to be an exceptional leader to know that you need to
| care for your subordinates.
|
| Yes, there are terrible leaders in the military. There
| are leaders who go through courses specifically geared
| for command positions, learn tools on good leadership,
| and then actively use techniques counter to the learned
| approach. However, there are terrible leaders everywhere,
| at all levels of command.
|
| Very rarely are civilian leaders given dedicated time and
| instruction within their profession on how to manage
| their subordinates effectively, outside of say academia
| (e.g.: business school). The military has professional
| military education (PME) built into all levels of
| leadership from first line supervisors up to executive
| leadership (general officers)---The differences between
| military and civilian leadership is very apparent.
| Military veterans are often the most preferred
| candidates, all things being equal, in recruiting pools
| because of their leadership and performance.
| scrum-treats wrote:
| > You're making a correlation that the best leaders are
| at the top, but that's not the case.
|
| I'm not. I said this:
|
| "However, the majority of military is not in the upper
| echelons of the power hierarchy. _And the majority of
| leaders in the military do not fall in this category of
| exceptionalism._ "
|
| > However, there are terrible leaders everywhere, at all
| levels of command.
|
| Yes, this is what I am saying.
|
| > Military veterans are often the most preferred
| candidates, all things being equal, in recruiting pools
| because of their leadership and performance.
|
| No. Military veterans are often preferred because it is
| easy to understand how you've been trained and how you
| will react. Because Operant Conditioning. Oftentimes it
| is not because you are the best, rather it is because you
| are predictable, and cheaper.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> Is it?_
|
| The only reason to even _have_ a military is to have the
| ability to fight and win wars. If your military can 't do
| that, it's not worth having at all.
|
| _> The military programs people, like hypnosis + operant
| conditioning, to respond instantly and consistently to
| stimuli._
|
| Is this based on personal experience? If so, how recent?
| My experience in the military is several decades old, but
| the above is not a good description of what I experienced
| then.
| scrum-treats wrote:
| > The only reason to even have a military is to have the
| ability to fight and win wars. If your military can't do
| that, it's not worth having at all.
|
| While it is one use case, it is not all use cases.
|
| > Is this based on personal experience? If so, how
| recent? My experience in the military is several decades
| old, but the above is not a good description of what I
| experienced then.
|
| It is based on multitudes of studies in psychology,
| neuroscience, sociology, evolutionary anthropology, and
| the like. At its very core, the purpose is to reduce
| individuality and to reprogram a person's brain and body
| to fit the characteristics of military use cases; to make
| replicable bodies fit for military use. There's tons of
| declassified docs that describe this process, at least
| since WWI. And then if you study history then you'll know
| this has been a topic of investigation for thousands of
| years.
|
| This is why there is an "adjustment period" and persons
| are strongly suggested to under go deprogramming before
| returning to civilian life. You've tricked the brain into
| believing a specific version of reality that is not
| objective reality, and there's so much PTSD/cognitive
| dissonance that the human brain and body is now forced to
| endure post-service. It's quite taxing physically,
| mentally and emotionally. You know, like a cult...
| Because it's a cult.
|
| This is not a new phenomenon by any stretch.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> While it is one use case, it is not all use cases._
|
| Really? What other use cases are there for a military?
|
| _> It is based on multitudes of studies in psychology,
| neuroscience, sociology, evolutionary anthropology, and
| the like. _
|
| In other words, no, you have no personal experience to
| back up your claims. You should not presume to speak of
| what you do not know.
|
| As for the "cult" accusation, historially, militaries
| that work like cults do not win wars. Militaries that win
| wars have esprit de corps, but that is not the same as a
| cult. A cult has no objective purpose outside the people
| who run it. A military does--or at least, a military that
| can actually win wars does.
| brightlancer wrote:
| > > It is based on multitudes of studies in psychology,
| neuroscience, sociology, evolutionary anthropology, and
| the like.
|
| > In other words, no, you have no personal experience to
| back up your claims.
|
| It's ironic that in a threat discussing leadership as a
| discipline, someone would make an appeal to "lived
| experience".
|
| Unless someone here was with you, they don't know (nor do
| I) what your personal experience was. Similarly, you
| don't know everyone else's personal experiences. OTOH, we
| have these wonderful social sciences which go around and
| collect data from lots and lots of individuals, draw
| conclusions and publish them for other people to read and
| learn.
|
| The data and conclusions might not be representative of
| your experience, but it's rubbish for you to handwave it
| away for your individual, subjective experience.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> It 's ironic that in a threat discussing leadership as
| a discipline, someone would make an appeal to "lived
| experience"._
|
| It's not ironic at all. Leadership itself is something
| that can't be studied purely from the outside.
|
| _> we have these wonderful social sciences_
|
| I don't share your rosy view of these so-called sciences.
| But that's not something we're going to resolve here.
| scrum-treats wrote:
| You wanting to believe something is more magical than it
| is, is up to you. By all means wax poetic in your mind.
|
| > In other words, no, you have no personal experience to
| back up your claims. You should not presume to speak of
| what you do not know.
|
| Incorrect. Do take your own advice.
|
| > As for the "cult" accusation, historially, militaries
| that work like cults do not win wars. Militaries that win
| wars have esprit de corps, but that is not the same as a
| cult. A cult has no objective purpose outside the people
| who run it. A military does--or at least, a military that
| can actually win wars does.
|
| If you don't know what qualifies as a cult, and you
| cannot think at a systems level to compare one cult vs.
| another (e.g., Army vs. Navy vs. Marines), that's for you
| to own in terms of your shortcomings. Not mine.
|
| In terms of "winning the war", that is your cult
| programming shining through. Still to this day. What's
| the goal? "win the war" + < Hoorah Vs. Oorah Vs. Hooah
| Vs. Hooyah > (you know, because cults have their own
| signaling mechanism).
|
| Cult strategies are useful in homogeneity and group
| cohesion; you want hyper-in-group associations in part
| because it ensures you are alive and the enemy is un-
| alive.
|
| Have you really not reflected on your time, as a human
| alive on earth, ever? Is it because no one told you to
| reflect on your time as a human on earth? (You know,
| because you are programmed to wait for others to tell you
| what to do and what is important vs. unimportant before
| actually doing it)
|
| Startling, to be honest.
| pdonis wrote:
| We evidently don't have enough common ground to have a
| useful discussion. You are making huge, sweeping
| statements based on nothing. I see no point in further
| engagement with you.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> You 've tricked the brain into believing a specific
| version of reality that is not objective reality_
|
| Whereas civilians, of course, have a completely accurate
| view of objective reality with no illusions? It is to
| laugh.
| scrum-treats wrote:
| >> You've tricked the brain into believing a specific
| version of reality that is not objective reality
|
| > Whereas civilians, of course, have a completely
| accurate view of objective reality with no illusions? It
| is to laugh.
|
| No. It's just different; in some ways radically different
| than the niche reality of "military." .... That's the
| point.
|
| Are you still in the military because you are sending
| clear signals that you are not in control of your own
| mind. Which gets into the illusion of free will and if
| that's real, but there's a boundedness that is tight or
| loose depending on the individual/group. And yours seems
| quite tight. As in, constricted from any thoughts outside
| your military programming. Scary stuff.
| laserdancepony wrote:
| And you are the only one who can see clearly through
| everything. How nice.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> It 's just different_
|
| If you mean that civilian life is different from military
| life, yes, of course, that's to be expected. That doesn't
| mean civilian "reality" is somehow more valid or more
| accurate than military "reality". Indeed, since most
| civilians aren't expected to routinely risk their lives
| as part of their job, one would expect civilians' view of
| reality to be _missing_ some things. (And looking at
| civilians whose jobs _do_ routinely involve risking one
| 's life, such as police or firefighting, might give quite
| a different take on even civilian "reality".)
|
| _> Are you still in the military_
|
| No. I already said elsewhere in this discussion that my
| military experience is several decades old.
|
| _> you are sending clear signals that you are not in
| control of your own mind_
|
| Spare me your patronizing. You are welcome to your
| uninformed opinions, but don't expect me to respect them.
| I see no point in further discussion with you.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> there 's so much PTSD/cognitive dissonance that the
| human brain and body is now forced to endure post-
| service_
|
| Combat is traumatic by its very nature. Of course many
| people who experience it are going to have PTSD, just
| like with any other traumatic experience.
|
| As for "cognitive dissonance", anyone who has been
| through a particular harrowing experience is going to
| have some difficulty dealing with people who not only
| have never had the experience, but devalue it because
| they don't understand it. The only way to fix that is to
| (a) teach civilians that people who volunteer to serve
| their country in the military deserve respect, not
| disdain, and (b) teach our political leaders that they
| need to not use the military unless it's really
| necessary, so that the public will support such usage
| instead of protesting against it.
| brightlancer wrote:
| > (a) teach civilians that people who volunteer to serve
| their country in the military deserve respect, not
| disdain,
|
| Why? What if someone feels neither respect nor disdain
| but mostly indifference?
|
| What if someone treats each active member or vet as
| individuals, to be respected or disdained based upon
| their past and present behavior?
|
| You're trying to swap one prejudice for another. So, no.
| pdonis wrote:
| Indifference at an individual level is not necessarily a
| problem. Nor is exercising individual judgment.
|
| However, as a matter of public policy, our current
| treatment of veterans, to put it bluntly, sucks. The VA
| is underfunded and overworked, and many vets do not get
| the kind of support they need and deserve after risking
| their lives. The only reason the government can get away
| with that is that there is no political pressure to fix
| it.
| scrum-treats wrote:
| > but devalue it because they don't understand it.
|
| No one is devaluing it. I'm certainly not. Rather it is
| highlighting that humans are vulnerable, by genetic
| design. And it requires actual help to reprogram the
| brain. To take on the burden alone is quite a difficult
| and insurmountable task.
|
| For your (a) and (b) you are definitely entitled to your
| opinion on how you want to be viewed and treated in the
| world. This is very much the same as women arguing that
| men should not have a say over their bodies; bodily
| autonomy is a human right, not a right reserved for only
| white men.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> humans are vulnerable, by genetic design. And it
| requires actual help to reprogram the brain_
|
| Sure, I'm not disputing this at all. I'm just pointing
| out that this has nothing whatever to do with the
| military being a cult. It has to do with the nature of
| the military as an occupation. The military is certainly
| not the only occupation that has traumatic experiences as
| an expected part of service, and that needs to have a
| plan in place to deal with that.
|
| _> For your (a) and (b) you are definitely entitled to
| your opinion on how you want to be viewed and treated in
| the world._
|
| It's not a matter of my or anyone's wanting to be viewed
| a certain way. It's a matter of understanding as a
| country why we have a military at all and what it is for,
| and holding our political leaders accountable for making
| appropriate use of the military and giving it the support
| it needs.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-29 23:00 UTC)