5 ms·

> 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

> 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."

pdonis 3y ago
> 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 3y ago
  > 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 3y ago
    > 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.
    - scrum-treats 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - pdonis 3y ago
        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.
        scrum-treats 3y ago
        Do let me know if you want to engage with some scientific research, and/or declassified docs that describe exactly what I'm saying. Happy to share, because science and scientific method.
        dang 3y ago
        Please don't do tit-for-tat flamewars on HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. It's tedious and not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - dang 3y ago
        You broke the site guidelines egregiously in this thread with flamewar, snark, and even personal attack. We ban accounts that post like this because it destroys what the site is for. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules in the future, we'd appreciate it.
aethros 3y ago
> 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 3y ago
  > 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 3y ago

> 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 3y ago
> 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 3y ago
  > 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.
  - scrum-treats 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - pdonis 3y ago
      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.
      - scrum-treats 3y ago
        Do let me know if you want to engage with some scientific research, and/or declassified docs that describe exactly what I'm saying. Happy to share, because science and scientific method.
      - dang 3y ago
        Please don't do tit-for-tat flamewars on HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. It's tedious and not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - dang 3y ago
      You broke the site guidelines egregiously in this thread with flamewar, snark, and even personal attack. We ban accounts that post like this because it destroys what the site is for. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules in the future, we'd appreciate it.

aethros 3y ago

> 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 3y ago
> 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.