3 ms·
> Why didn't they use inexperienced soldiers of both sexes in the experiment? That likely would be flawed in its own right --- these days there are probably fe
by dctoedt 11y ago
> Why didn't they use inexperienced soldiers of both sexes in the experiment?
That likely would be flawed in its own right --- these days there are probably few infantry squads composed solely of combat virgins. The Corps summary suggests that the study might have tried to control for lack of combat experience: "Male provisional infantry (those with no formal 03xx [i.e., infantry] school training) had higher hit percentages than the 0311 (school trained) females: M4: 44% vs 28%, M27: 38% vs 25%, M16A4w/M203: 26% vs 15%." [1]
[1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531/marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531/marine-co..., linked FTA
- dragonwriter 11y ago> That likely would be flawed in its own right --- these days there are probably few infantry squads composed solely of combat virgins. But since they weren't testing all-female squads, but integrated squads and all-male squads, this is easy to address: determine an appropriate and typical distribution of experience levels. For the all-male squads, use men of this distribution. For the integrated squads, do the same, only replace some-to-all of the combat-inexperienced men from the typical experience distribution with combat inexperienced women. Then you are getting a fair representation, without either skewing the overall experience distribution so you have atypical squads on both sides, or skewing the experience distribution low on only the integrade side so you aren't comparing like against like.