- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Social engineering in the military has had some ups and downs. One thing many don't know about the U.S. military is that it was racially integrated until President Woodrow Wilson, a contemptible racist, segregated it. President Truman re-integrated our military in 1947, in part laying the ground for the civil rights progress of the '50s and '60s. Fitting women into proper military roles has been a little more difficult, given the realities of gender physical differences, and the sexual friction compounding the stress of military life. Accepting gay males in the military has been less difficult, since military folk tend to look at a merit-based value. If a gay sharpshooter takes out the enemy that was aiming to kill you, it's hard to be resentful. The attempt to integrate transgenders into the military was a bad idea from the start. These are people with identity confusion to begin with, and a high suicide rate in the civilian world. They don't need the added stress of military life.
Diabetics aren't allowed to enlist, because they're medically dependent. Transgenders, likewise, depend on hormones and other medical support, making them just as medically dependent as diabetics. My opinion on this is not a matter of prejudice, as I've worked with transgenders quite amiably. I take people in general as individuals. I'm not prejudiced against epileptics, either, but I agree they shouldn't be in the military.
And, of course, in the field, everything is team work. You always have a "battle buddy" even if you are a supply clerk.
For myself, as an individualist that was a deep lesson for me to learn. I was preparing to deliver training, hauling computers and stuff up from my vehicle to the classroom, when a sergeant stopped me and told me to find some specialists or privates and have them do the work. It is not you make others do your heavy lifting but that (1) they get the opportunity to learn by doing whatever it is and (2) you practice leadership by directing their actions.
That all being as it may, you are 100% right that ultimately, it comes down to you. You are responsible for everything from your bootlaces to your next promotion.
(Speaking of promotions, that, too, is a lesson. In the private sector, you get promoted for good behavior. So, we have the "Peter Principle" of people promoted to their level of incompetence. In the military, you get ribbons for good work and get promoted based on your demonstrated potential for leadership.)
This may be true of police as well.
Do you think there is any change in attitudes of those with military experience and their families?
Yes because those occupations give personal confidence, training which is useful outside,
and some income security.
No if willingness to join required those character traits to exist before joining.
That is, is a large military that recruits from the unskilled, a tool, good or bad, of social engineering?
The numbers are what they are for reasons. High school is a minimum requirement, but the Army does not go looking for college graduates, Catholics, or women. It is pretty much open anyone who wants to serve, and the numbers fall where they do.
Based on my own learning in college, I believe that African-Americans are over-represented for two reasons: the military is a path to success, a way up and out; and A-A culture is in large part an outgrowth Southern culture, within which military service is an expression of the value placed on personal honor.
As a corollary, bear in mind that many of the largest bases are in the South. Familiarity with the military, the opportunity to know people in the military, supports the acculturation to military society.
As for social engineering, at the peak in World War II only 10% of the nation was in the military. That's a lot, but, not much, really. Now it is 0.8% active and 2% including reserves and veterans. It is hard to see much social engineering going on.
You say that the military teaches the value placed on personal honor and provides a path to success, a way up and out.
I could add attitudes like -Life is not perfect but any individual can make things at least a little bit better or learn to accept the nonsense with stoicism. -Promotion is on merit at least sometimes. -Life, success and survival depend on others so trust them and they trust you to do your job.
On top of that is the education in basic literacy and technical skills.
All that is good, yes?
Is there evidence that military experience is improving attitudes and skills especially among the demographics most deficient?
If so, should we be glad for the military doing that, as well as what it is set up to do? Maybe it should it be expanded to do more of it! Social engineering.
I have almost talked myself into it, but I recall another institution is supposed to do that job, the education system. Both are state run,.
In my view the military has some success, the education system has poor success and is getting worse.
Maybe not where you intended your thread going but this is how my thoughts went.
But that prejudice was born of the 1920s when my immigrant Catholic grandparents lived in West Virginia and the KKK was so powerful that they marched openly in Washington DC.
So, I can accept your view that Australia's aborigines have been coddled to death.
I think that your question has merit, though, in that the military in America has been an equalizing institution. I spent most of my career in the private sector as a contractor. I have seen General Motors, Ford, Kawasaki, and Honda, and a slew of small technology firms. I have interviewed innovators for business magazines talking about the culture of quality. It is easy to complain about what you know, based on what you know. Myself, working in this particular military office has been the best job of my career. Not everyone is 100%, but those who are not stand out as exceptions, and do not rise, whereas those who do the right things and avoid the wrong things do achieve greater responsibilities by promotion.
The key difference is this: In the private sector, we promote based on good behavior. Thus, we have the "Peter Principle" of people promoted to their level of incompetence. In the military, you get ribbons for good behavior. You get promoted based on your demonstrated potential for leadership.
That demonstration includes documented proof that you were instrumental in the promotions earned by those below you to their next levels. It is not a metric that I have seen in the private sector.
BTW your little sidebar is impressive, you produce a lot of written material. I'm also impressed you put the "Watchmen" on your list of favs, I had never heard of it before, did some digging around, and have watched it a few times now, it is one of those "need several runs to get" movies.
Thanks, also, for looking at the blog. Regarding the Watchmen, while it does have sense-of-life problems from Ron Moore, it was highly regarded among "objectivish" writers. This post in the Gulch from a link to Reason got zero notice.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
I picked up on the movie on my own, just seeing the posters in a Borders bookstore before they closed out. I bought two comic compendiums and we went to the theater. I then bought the movie. Since then, I sat through it or parts of it a couple of times more. It has flaws, but "objectivish" people like it. See this on Rebirth of Reason
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Movi...
(BTW Firefly is another.)
In my training class, and the classes that went through at the same time, they were around 10%. When getting to my first unit, it was closer to 40% and they had a higher average rank.
This was due, I think to multiple factors. Whether attributed to genetics or culture, they are statistically less likely to be chaptered out due to failing physical standard (PT tests or Hight and weight).
They are also promoted on a different scale, based on command needing a higher percentage of minorities within a unit or MOS. This means (though the majority of all soldiers I worked with strived to exceed the standard) they would often be promoted with lower points and scores.
The vast majority of soldiers either serve one contact or stay in to retirement. Being a higher rank (resulting in higher pay, dealing with less medial tasks, higher living conditions, and a higher general sense of accomplishment) affects that decision a great deal.
From my observations, there is also a stronger professional level support system. The military is known for a close comradery that I saw definitely exists between all soldiers. However, on a professional level, when choosing younger soldiers to mentor, who to send to a school, or a special detail that will look really good on their record, there is a sense of 'helping out my own kind'. Whites will generally be mindful to not do this, as it would be seen as racist and could cost them their entire career. However, with specific military supported clubs and organizations solely for blacks, it is made clear that the issue is not looked at the same from the other perspective.
Not everyone who enjoyed the Atlas Shrugged movies has been motivated to read more of Ayn Rand, and certainly not her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology or even The Virtue of Selfishness. So, we get some traditionalist expressions of collectivism, altruism, or mysticism that are not based on reality and reason.
10% are unsure whether they're liberal, moderate, or conservative, even though asking the question that way encourages respondants to select one of the three. I wonder if they asked people, "Regarding the spectrum of liberal, moderate, conservative, how sure are you of where you fall on this," I bet very few people are "very sure". People think for themselves.
Reading the survey made me think it's hard to know anyone about these questions.
In their narrative Schake and Mattis say that some people had no idea how large the military is, how many people serve right now, from 180,000 to 18 million. But that question was not published in the survey. It does underscore the general lack of knowledge about the military, despite the broad emotional support.
(1) the book edited by Schake and Mattis contained works of other researchers with whom the editors did not always agree.
(2) the book by Dempsey
(3) the doctoral dissertation by Urben.
http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/f...
Just from some of the answers (and I assume that they used the same sample group) it appeared there were a large majority of "no previous military experience".