5 ms·

There are so many interesting questions here and the author seems to have a laser-like focus on the material fact that he feels insubordination has occured and

by throwaway22032 5y ago

There are so many interesting questions here and the author seems to have a laser-like focus on the material fact that he feels insubordination has occured and that this is a problem, which doesn't really require more than a sentence or so of explanation. For example, in training, why is it that the soldiers agree to polish their boots, iron their uniforms etcetera - e.g. generally perform a ton of ancillary tasks to the actual job? I don't think it's solely because someone said so. There's a level of respect for the ritual that comes from somewhere. Like, they might think that today they can't be arsed with polishing the boots, but that it's a point of pride to do it. Or there's a competitive aspect with the others. Maybe it actually is just because the commander will bark at them otherwise - but that just cycles around to the motivation to the commander. Once you figure that out, does that illustrate that there's something unique about mask wearing? Like, you have this empirical data that soldiers will literally run into a battlefield and dodge landmines and all the rest of it, you've created a framework in which that's an order they'll obey. I dunno, it feels like the article is really light on the "whys". The thing your mental model told you should happen is not happening - so try to understand it? Try to figure out why people don't want to do this thing?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lazide 5y ago
Recruits do what they are told because they have been conditioned to do it - it’s the purpose of boot camp, it’s the purpose of drill Sargents, it’s the purpose of the ritual and culture of the military. If they lose that conditioning or fail to comply, there are many negative consequences for them. From minor things like being passed over for promotion, to jail. When you become familiar with, and have experience with people and what combat operations actually entails, it becomes obvious why this is the case, and why it is necessary. Soldiers who do not follow orders, even sometimes nonsensical ones, die or get others killed. Sometimes everyone. It is impossible and unwise to explain the needs and situation behind every order in a combat situation. Even if there was no leaks, assuming every grunt will have the capacity and meta awareness of the situation to process it correctly and not get confused just doesn’t work. It also opens up reinterpreting orders in ways that have unexpected consequences and end up breaking larger unit movements that depend on specific side effects and actions. It also has negative side effects of course - inefficiencies, difficulty adjusting to changing circumstances, opportunities for corruption and abuse. Blind obedience is a double edged sword, for the same reason our brain generally has mechanisms to shy away from us chopping our own hand off. You don’t want that. But you need to ensure that orders are followed when it matters, or you don’t have a military, you have a social club with tanks.
- throwaway22032 5y ago
  Yeah, all of that makes sense. I don't at all disagree with the concept of military discipline. But then we come to the question of why this one thing is different. Because that's how you're going to solve it right? And the article just doesn't seem to expound on it. It's observed, and that's just it, there's paragraphs of waffle. There's not even like, an anonymous quote from the guy asking one of the other recruits/OC's/whatever (I'm slightly more au fait with UK military terms as you might be able to tell) why they're not doing it. There's an implicit extrapolation that slippage on this particular point implies slippage across the board. But that isn't explored either - it's kind of just stated as if it's a physical consequence which doesn't seem clear at all to me. As an absurd example - if you suddenly turned up, in theatre, with the soldiers' wives, and asked them to shoot them, I'd imagine a lot of them would refuse. But that wouldn't in any way imply that you now have some increased subordination risk in the future. It would imply that your order was absurd. Obviously, in this wholly artificial and constructed case, we know that because we've constructed it to be so, but you get my point. In the article there appears to be zero thought given to the concept that if a huge group of people, people who, as you well describe, have been drilled and moulded into accepting almost any order without question, are refusing to do what you're asking them to do, that there might be some fundamental issue with what you're asking them to do. I don't really know what the actual answer is, I mean obviously the act of putting a thing on your face is trivial when described in those terms, but something else is going on here.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    > In the article there appears to be zero thought given to the concept that [...] there might be some fundamental issue with what you're asking them to do. [...] something else is going on here. The simplest explanation is that there isn't a fundamental issue. For civilians, you might claim that there is some sort of deep principle of freedom at stake, however ridiculous it might be given that those same people are all happy enough to comply with the laws most places have about covering up their naughty bits. But this is the military. They signed up for a job where many of their freedoms go out the window. This very clearly among them. If you look at who's wearing masks and who isn't, [1] it's obvious that this is a political. And if you read the news, it has been deeply politicized. Soldiers refusing to wear masks is a political statement: they in practice view allegiance to party (and/or news channel) above allegiance to the chain of command. The "something else" going on here is the same sort of propaganda-driven undermining of belief in rule of law that has been going on for years, and has resulted in the attempt to sack Congress and a majority of Republicans believing that the last presidential election wasn't legitimate. [2] This is all pretty much in line with how democracies slide into autocracies. Given that the Trump administration considered using the military to seize voting machines in Dcember 2020, [3] people should be very nervous about signs that the military has become this deeply politicized. [1] https://www.roanoke.edu/about/news/rc_poll_political_anxiety_mask_vax https://www.roanoke.edu/about/news/rc_poll_political_anxiety... [2] https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/one-year-on-republicans-still-dont-consider-biden-the-rightful-winner-506702/ https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/one-year-on-republicans... [3] https://www.vox.com/2022/2/1/22912394/trump-giuliani-seize-voting-machines-military https://www.vox.com/2022/2/1/22912394/trump-giuliani-seize-v...
_wldu 5y ago
I think the focus is on accomplishing things. Even small things like you mentioned. If you make your bed first thing each morning and have a bad day, you will still come home to a well made bed (an accomplishment) that you can enjoy. Every little accomplishment in life is important and motivating. They keep you going onto the next thing.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  It's absolutely not true that every order followed is an accomplishment. It may even be a crime.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
asdff 5y ago
Soldiers aren't in fear of their commanders when they don't polish their boots. They are in fear of their peers, who will put them in physical and mental hurt if they continue to screw up and make the rest of their peers suffer as a result of their actions. It's not always beatings either. Good luck continuing a military program like west point when every single cadet has decided to ostracize you and you don't have a single person to speak to at all. Good luck doing anything when you've been deprived of basic human functions like just speaking to someone.
- hbarka 5y ago
  I don’t agree with that. In my boot camp experience the fear from peers imposing physical or mental hurt was barely a factor for many of us. It was a matter of personal pride that made you want to spit shine boots and iron dress greens. We’d do it all together before lights out in preparation for the next day. It was a ritual during informal time to reflect on the day. Granted there’s the notion of a “blanket party” but that’s hardly the motivating factor and minimizes the personal drive to do well because you want to. It’s a volunteer military, not drafted by force and fear.
nescioquid 5y ago
> the author seems to have a laser-like focus on the material fact that he feels insubordination has occured and that this is a problem Indeed, how is it that in the 19th century the conscripted lined up in rank and file against grapeshot cannonade, went over the top in the war to end all wars, and only 1 of 3 discharged their weapons in WWII? Perhaps it is only the victory of management science that we more precisely know the extent to which the individual subordinates himself dutifully and unthinkingly to command. > I don't think it's solely because someone said so. The extent to which management reckons the rank and file's pliancy reliable -- without its image being rescued by romance (a la The Charge of the Light Brigade) -- relies upon the realism of quid pro quo and economic desperation. Where would we be without our crime-procedurals, super-hero movies, and high-school signing contracts? The omnipotence fantasy consists in wrongs that are righted, but when the bullshit wears so thin that everyone sees through it...what then? Rebel around some cultural touch-stone? > Try to figure out why people don't want to do this thing? I prefer management remain clueless. Can anyone imagine anything more horrifying than unthinking executors of commands? Executors who may wink out the lives of wedding parties a continent removed? I will laud you for echoing an American "leftist" commonplace for wishing to discover root-causes (exactly as quaint as "without even the appearance of impropriety"). But I cast my lot with all who reply "I prefer not to."

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lazide 5y ago

Recruits do what they are told because they have been conditioned to do it - it’s the purpose of boot camp, it’s the purpose of drill Sargents, it’s the purpose of the ritual and culture of the military. If they lose that conditioning or fail to comply, there are many negative consequences for them. From minor things like being passed over for promotion, to jail. When you become familiar with, and have experience with people and what combat operations actually entails, it becomes obvious why this is the case, and why it is necessary. Soldiers who do not follow orders, even sometimes nonsensical ones, die or get others killed. Sometimes everyone. It is impossible and unwise to explain the needs and situation behind every order in a combat situation. Even if there was no leaks, assuming every grunt will have the capacity and meta awareness of the situation to process it correctly and not get confused just doesn’t work. It also opens up reinterpreting orders in ways that have unexpected consequences and end up breaking larger unit movements that depend on specific side effects and actions. It also has negative side effects of course - inefficiencies, difficulty adjusting to changing circumstances, opportunities for corruption and abuse. Blind obedience is a double edged sword, for the same reason our brain generally has mechanisms to shy away from us chopping our own hand off. You don’t want that. But you need to ensure that orders are followed when it matters, or you don’t have a military, you have a social club with tanks.

throwaway22032 5y ago
Yeah, all of that makes sense. I don't at all disagree with the concept of military discipline. But then we come to the question of why this one thing is different. Because that's how you're going to solve it right? And the article just doesn't seem to expound on it. It's observed, and that's just it, there's paragraphs of waffle. There's not even like, an anonymous quote from the guy asking one of the other recruits/OC's/whatever (I'm slightly more au fait with UK military terms as you might be able to tell) why they're not doing it. There's an implicit extrapolation that slippage on this particular point implies slippage across the board. But that isn't explored either - it's kind of just stated as if it's a physical consequence which doesn't seem clear at all to me. As an absurd example - if you suddenly turned up, in theatre, with the soldiers' wives, and asked them to shoot them, I'd imagine a lot of them would refuse. But that wouldn't in any way imply that you now have some increased subordination risk in the future. It would imply that your order was absurd. Obviously, in this wholly artificial and constructed case, we know that because we've constructed it to be so, but you get my point. In the article there appears to be zero thought given to the concept that if a huge group of people, people who, as you well describe, have been drilled and moulded into accepting almost any order without question, are refusing to do what you're asking them to do, that there might be some fundamental issue with what you're asking them to do. I don't really know what the actual answer is, I mean obviously the act of putting a thing on your face is trivial when described in those terms, but something else is going on here.
- wpietri 5y ago
  > In the article there appears to be zero thought given to the concept that [...] there might be some fundamental issue with what you're asking them to do. [...] something else is going on here. The simplest explanation is that there isn't a fundamental issue. For civilians, you might claim that there is some sort of deep principle of freedom at stake, however ridiculous it might be given that those same people are all happy enough to comply with the laws most places have about covering up their naughty bits. But this is the military. They signed up for a job where many of their freedoms go out the window. This very clearly among them. If you look at who's wearing masks and who isn't, [1] it's obvious that this is a political. And if you read the news, it has been deeply politicized. Soldiers refusing to wear masks is a political statement: they in practice view allegiance to party (and/or news channel) above allegiance to the chain of command. The "something else" going on here is the same sort of propaganda-driven undermining of belief in rule of law that has been going on for years, and has resulted in the attempt to sack Congress and a majority of Republicans believing that the last presidential election wasn't legitimate. [2] This is all pretty much in line with how democracies slide into autocracies. Given that the Trump administration considered using the military to seize voting machines in Dcember 2020, [3] people should be very nervous about signs that the military has become this deeply politicized. [1] https://www.roanoke.edu/about/news/rc_poll_political_anxiety_mask_vax https://www.roanoke.edu/about/news/rc_poll_political_anxiety... [2] https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/one-year-on-republicans-still-dont-consider-biden-the-rightful-winner-506702/ https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/one-year-on-republicans... [3] https://www.vox.com/2022/2/1/22912394/trump-giuliani-seize-voting-machines-military https://www.vox.com/2022/2/1/22912394/trump-giuliani-seize-v...

_wldu 5y ago

I think the focus is on accomplishing things. Even small things like you mentioned. If you make your bed first thing each morning and have a bad day, you will still come home to a well made bed (an accomplishment) that you can enjoy. Every little accomplishment in life is important and motivating. They keep you going onto the next thing.

DarylZero 5y ago
It's absolutely not true that every order followed is an accomplishment. It may even be a crime.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

asdff 5y ago

Soldiers aren't in fear of their commanders when they don't polish their boots. They are in fear of their peers, who will put them in physical and mental hurt if they continue to screw up and make the rest of their peers suffer as a result of their actions. It's not always beatings either. Good luck continuing a military program like west point when every single cadet has decided to ostracize you and you don't have a single person to speak to at all. Good luck doing anything when you've been deprived of basic human functions like just speaking to someone.

hbarka 5y ago
I don’t agree with that. In my boot camp experience the fear from peers imposing physical or mental hurt was barely a factor for many of us. It was a matter of personal pride that made you want to spit shine boots and iron dress greens. We’d do it all together before lights out in preparation for the next day. It was a ritual during informal time to reflect on the day. Granted there’s the notion of a “blanket party” but that’s hardly the motivating factor and minimizes the personal drive to do well because you want to. It’s a volunteer military, not drafted by force and fear.

nescioquid 5y ago

> the author seems to have a laser-like focus on the material fact that he feels insubordination has occured and that this is a problem Indeed, how is it that in the 19th century the conscripted lined up in rank and file against grapeshot cannonade, went over the top in the war to end all wars, and only 1 of 3 discharged their weapons in WWII? Perhaps it is only the victory of management science that we more precisely know the extent to which the individual subordinates himself dutifully and unthinkingly to command. > I don't think it's solely because someone said so. The extent to which management reckons the rank and file's pliancy reliable -- without its image being rescued by romance (a la The Charge of the Light Brigade) -- relies upon the realism of quid pro quo and economic desperation. Where would we be without our crime-procedurals, super-hero movies, and high-school signing contracts? The omnipotence fantasy consists in wrongs that are righted, but when the bullshit wears so thin that everyone sees through it...what then? Rebel around some cultural touch-stone? > Try to figure out why people don't want to do this thing? I prefer management remain clueless. Can anyone imagine anything more horrifying than unthinking executors of commands? Executors who may wink out the lives of wedding parties a continent removed? I will laud you for echoing an American "leftist" commonplace for wishing to discover root-causes (exactly as quaint as "without even the appearance of impropriety"). But I cast my lot with all who reply "I prefer not to."