7 ms·

> but at the end of the day it's just abuse. to this day, im not sure how i feel about this topic. I saw the US Navy undergo a lot of changes in this regard wh

> but at the end of the day it's just abuse. to this day, im not sure how i feel about this topic. I saw the US Navy undergo a lot of changes in this regard while i was serving. historically, various forms of hazing and abuse have been a part of the culture and advancement process. this has fallen out of favor and policy has either eliminated or taken the teeth out of these older practices. im not convinced it has been a net positive. there are certainly some positives, but there are also some negatives. having abuse in the pipeline means that the only people that make it through are strong enough to withstand abuse and this strength is a positive quality. however, good people that might otherwise have performed well are sometimes lost. ive known people that have had psychotic breaks or jumped off the ship in the middle of the ocean, but i also knew concentrated forces of willpower, warfighting engineers that inspire me to this day. would more or less hazing have changed either one of those groups?

__jem 6y ago
> having abuse in the pipeline means that the only people that make it through are strong enough to withstand abuse and this strength is a positive quality Having an assembly line process to create abusers isn't a positive. After they're done abusing the cadets, these men go home and beat their wives and children.
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
  Not to mention their captive "non-military combatants".
bdauvergne 6y ago
What about an organization that would build such willpower into people instead of just selecting those which already have it ? Maybe it's possible, and I think it would economize more of the available human resource. A bit like lean management applied to people. It seems to me that self confidence and willpower is a direct result of social confidence. If you know the group is behind you it's simpler to become strong, maybe.
chrisgd 6y ago
If you said this about fraternities, everyone would ridicule you for hours. I don’t think the technological progression of the navy would have been hindered if we had had a nicer working environment.
- sjg007 6y ago
  Fraternities are basically lord of the flies right?
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    What are you basing that on? In Lord of the Flies, the kids burn down an island and kill the fat kid by dropping a boulder on his head.
    - sjg007 6y ago
      Allegory.
      - CyberDildonics 6y ago
        That doesn't make any sense as a response. Lord of the Flies is an allegory for anarchy and violence driving a group in a desperate situation. I asked what you are basing your comparison of the book to fraternities on and you told me a literary device used by the book instead.
  - jorts 6y ago
    Not even close
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  There are other factors besides technological progression to be considered. If you want "workers" who are willing to brutally kill others and sacrifice their lives without questioning their orders, the question becomes less clear. IT is entirely possible that the optimal mental state of a soldier is not the same as a healthy and productive member of society.
genedan 6y ago
One way to get more out of people is well, to pay more. Another way is to treat them better. Yet another way is to abuse them, but I would think that would only work for people who don't really have any other options in life, and you do run into the problem of turnover when people quit, so you pay for it anyway, although I'm not sure how the military works - can you just quit and go work as a civilian? I can immediately find another job that pays at least as much as my current job if my boss were to start abusing me, for example. If you can't quit the military then it does start making sense to me. The people who stay justify their life choices by characterizing the people who leave as being weak, but those people simply had better options. I don't think building a stressful/abusive culture is necessary to get the best out of people. Great people have been produced without such structures, although some people can be coerced into greatness, so it is a way, but not something I'd want to deal with nor is that the kind of culture I would want to build if I were in charge.
leokennis 6y ago
Sorry, but military abuse is literally what led to atrocities committed by the German and Japanese armies. Or atrocities committed by child soldiers: - The lowest ranks have no power, get little sleep, little comforts and get bullied - The people who withstand this for long enough, get a promotion and het a little more power and are incentivized to use this power to now bully their new subordinates - This way, they become “part of the system” as well, so they are less likely to change that system - Repeat ad infinitum through all the ranks So what you’re building here is a pyramid scheme of bullies, who are all guilty enough to have no moral standing to stop the bullying and who at the same time are all bullied enough to want to make promotions so they might be bullied less. Results: hush hush culture, blind obedience, no checks and balances on excessive behavior, larger percentage of people who “make it” will have psychopathic tendencies. Give these people guns, bayonets and power and within no time they’re stabbing Jews for fun in Auschwitz.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  You point out some very real consequences, but that does not negate the possible advantages. Weighing the net effect really depends on your organizational objectives. For example, I know people who are damaged from growing up in incredibly hard abusive environments. They Have shot people and still occasionally beat people bloody due to anger issues. If I had to choose someone to be in a life or death combat situation alongside, I would easily choose them over my less "damaged" friends. In a similar vein, the Japanese were also known to be remarkably ferocious and obedidiant fighters and it is unclear if Japan would have done better in WWII if they had a less abusive military. It is entirely possible that the optimal mental state of a soldier is not the same as a healthy and productive member of society.
  - leokennis 6y ago
    Sure, there might be advantages like you describe. But then you’re describing damaging people for life, only to extract 5-10 years of possibly more effective military service out of them. If that is truly a decision you want to take as a country/military, it says a lot about the kind of society you’re part of.
ausbah 6y ago
totally ignoring how even if you look fine on the outside, abuse still causes mental trauma if you want a force of people that are mentally resilient, make the job tough. you don't need to needlessly harass workers because it gives the appearance of "strength"
EliRivers 6y ago
If an organisation is serious about building mental fortitude, one of the worst (and ineffective to the point of being counter-productive) ways to do that is to let bullies and weak-willed followers freestyle brutalise people. It doesn't make people stronger. It doesn't create mental fortitude. It just selects for people who will enjoy or put up with that kind of bullshit. Nobody teaches marksmanship by giving untrained recruits a big box of ammo and seeing who hits the target. Nobody teaches fieldcraft by just releasing untrained people without equipment into the woods and seeing which of them don't starve or die of exposure. Why the hell would anyone try to instill mental fortitude (which is so vitally important in times of stress) through such an incompetent, cack-handed and damaging way? They wouldn't. They're just looking for an excuse to look the other way.
kebman 6y ago
Having done my duty for the Norwegian army, I'd say there is some justification for having a level of "abuse" in the military, due to the stressful combat you may have to survive one day. After all, in times of war, the reward for underperformance is death. Even so, that is no excuse for bullying or extortion. And to me this story sounds much more like the latter. Being hired by an office is not going to war, no matter how you frame it. And pouring so much work on subordinates that they buckle or quit, isn't really effective either, from more standpoints than one, and especially if the job cannot reasonably be optimized any further. If so this practise reveals a pretty horrid view on your fellow human beings as disposable. While a certain amount of stress can be a good motivator, in the end it just wears you out. Makes me curious, though. If you work at Goldman Sachs, is the pay so bad that you cannot afford an assistant? Or are the bosses there really so stingy and morally empty that they'd rather wear people out, than foster a productive environment? When their practise is so short term, it makes me wonder about the rest of their business.
- mythrwy 6y ago
  "it makes me wonder about the rest of their business" Maybe the rest of the business is basically raping and pillaging society at large and the abuse is a form of training as in your military example?
smcg 6y ago
Those abused people go home and abuse their spouses and families. They kill and rape sex workers and native citizens oversees. Just because the externalities fell on people you don't care about doesn't make it okay.
smt88 6y ago
So you want the Navy to filter out people who either aren't abusive or can't take abuse? During the pandemic, my friends in medicine saw people go through absolutely grueling months of long hours, dangerous conditions, and sometimes isolation from their families. They did it because lots of people are strong when they have a reason to be and believe in what they're doing. No one hazed those people. Your idea of strength is sad, narrow, misinformed, and honestly something I thought we had left behind in the last century. I am afraid for the mental health of our military.
dang 6y ago
(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26522550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26522550.)

__jem 6y ago

> having abuse in the pipeline means that the only people that make it through are strong enough to withstand abuse and this strength is a positive quality Having an assembly line process to create abusers isn't a positive. After they're done abusing the cadets, these men go home and beat their wives and children.

VBprogrammer 6y ago
Not to mention their captive "non-military combatants".

bdauvergne 6y ago

What about an organization that would build such willpower into people instead of just selecting those which already have it ? Maybe it's possible, and I think it would economize more of the available human resource. A bit like lean management applied to people. It seems to me that self confidence and willpower is a direct result of social confidence. If you know the group is behind you it's simpler to become strong, maybe.

chrisgd 6y ago

If you said this about fraternities, everyone would ridicule you for hours. I don’t think the technological progression of the navy would have been hindered if we had had a nicer working environment.

sjg007 6y ago
Fraternities are basically lord of the flies right?
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  What are you basing that on? In Lord of the Flies, the kids burn down an island and kill the fat kid by dropping a boulder on his head.
  - sjg007 6y ago
    Allegory.
    - CyberDildonics 6y ago
      That doesn't make any sense as a response. Lord of the Flies is an allegory for anarchy and violence driving a group in a desperate situation. I asked what you are basing your comparison of the book to fraternities on and you told me a literary device used by the book instead.
- jorts 6y ago
  Not even close
s1artibartfast 6y ago
There are other factors besides technological progression to be considered. If you want "workers" who are willing to brutally kill others and sacrifice their lives without questioning their orders, the question becomes less clear. IT is entirely possible that the optimal mental state of a soldier is not the same as a healthy and productive member of society.

genedan 6y ago

One way to get more out of people is well, to pay more. Another way is to treat them better. Yet another way is to abuse them, but I would think that would only work for people who don't really have any other options in life, and you do run into the problem of turnover when people quit, so you pay for it anyway, although I'm not sure how the military works - can you just quit and go work as a civilian? I can immediately find another job that pays at least as much as my current job if my boss were to start abusing me, for example. If you can't quit the military then it does start making sense to me. The people who stay justify their life choices by characterizing the people who leave as being weak, but those people simply had better options. I don't think building a stressful/abusive culture is necessary to get the best out of people. Great people have been produced without such structures, although some people can be coerced into greatness, so it is a way, but not something I'd want to deal with nor is that the kind of culture I would want to build if I were in charge.

leokennis 6y ago

Sorry, but military abuse is literally what led to atrocities committed by the German and Japanese armies. Or atrocities committed by child soldiers: - The lowest ranks have no power, get little sleep, little comforts and get bullied - The people who withstand this for long enough, get a promotion and het a little more power and are incentivized to use this power to now bully their new subordinates - This way, they become “part of the system” as well, so they are less likely to change that system - Repeat ad infinitum through all the ranks So what you’re building here is a pyramid scheme of bullies, who are all guilty enough to have no moral standing to stop the bullying and who at the same time are all bullied enough to want to make promotions so they might be bullied less. Results: hush hush culture, blind obedience, no checks and balances on excessive behavior, larger percentage of people who “make it” will have psychopathic tendencies. Give these people guns, bayonets and power and within no time they’re stabbing Jews for fun in Auschwitz.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
You point out some very real consequences, but that does not negate the possible advantages. Weighing the net effect really depends on your organizational objectives. For example, I know people who are damaged from growing up in incredibly hard abusive environments. They Have shot people and still occasionally beat people bloody due to anger issues. If I had to choose someone to be in a life or death combat situation alongside, I would easily choose them over my less "damaged" friends. In a similar vein, the Japanese were also known to be remarkably ferocious and obedidiant fighters and it is unclear if Japan would have done better in WWII if they had a less abusive military. It is entirely possible that the optimal mental state of a soldier is not the same as a healthy and productive member of society.
- leokennis 6y ago
  Sure, there might be advantages like you describe. But then you’re describing damaging people for life, only to extract 5-10 years of possibly more effective military service out of them. If that is truly a decision you want to take as a country/military, it says a lot about the kind of society you’re part of.

ausbah 6y ago

totally ignoring how even if you look fine on the outside, abuse still causes mental trauma if you want a force of people that are mentally resilient, make the job tough. you don't need to needlessly harass workers because it gives the appearance of "strength"

EliRivers 6y ago

If an organisation is serious about building mental fortitude, one of the worst (and ineffective to the point of being counter-productive) ways to do that is to let bullies and weak-willed followers freestyle brutalise people. It doesn't make people stronger. It doesn't create mental fortitude. It just selects for people who will enjoy or put up with that kind of bullshit. Nobody teaches marksmanship by giving untrained recruits a big box of ammo and seeing who hits the target. Nobody teaches fieldcraft by just releasing untrained people without equipment into the woods and seeing which of them don't starve or die of exposure. Why the hell would anyone try to instill mental fortitude (which is so vitally important in times of stress) through such an incompetent, cack-handed and damaging way? They wouldn't. They're just looking for an excuse to look the other way.

kebman 6y ago

Having done my duty for the Norwegian army, I'd say there is some justification for having a level of "abuse" in the military, due to the stressful combat you may have to survive one day. After all, in times of war, the reward for underperformance is death. Even so, that is no excuse for bullying or extortion. And to me this story sounds much more like the latter. Being hired by an office is not going to war, no matter how you frame it. And pouring so much work on subordinates that they buckle or quit, isn't really effective either, from more standpoints than one, and especially if the job cannot reasonably be optimized any further. If so this practise reveals a pretty horrid view on your fellow human beings as disposable. While a certain amount of stress can be a good motivator, in the end it just wears you out. Makes me curious, though. If you work at Goldman Sachs, is the pay so bad that you cannot afford an assistant? Or are the bosses there really so stingy and morally empty that they'd rather wear people out, than foster a productive environment? When their practise is so short term, it makes me wonder about the rest of their business.

mythrwy 6y ago
"it makes me wonder about the rest of their business" Maybe the rest of the business is basically raping and pillaging society at large and the abuse is a form of training as in your military example?

smcg 6y ago

Those abused people go home and abuse their spouses and families. They kill and rape sex workers and native citizens oversees. Just because the externalities fell on people you don't care about doesn't make it okay.

smt88 6y ago

So you want the Navy to filter out people who either aren't abusive or can't take abuse? During the pandemic, my friends in medicine saw people go through absolutely grueling months of long hours, dangerous conditions, and sometimes isolation from their families. They did it because lots of people are strong when they have a reason to be and believe in what they're doing. No one hazed those people. Your idea of strength is sad, narrow, misinformed, and honestly something I thought we had left behind in the last century. I am afraid for the mental health of our military.

dang 6y ago

(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26522550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26522550.)