4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - scrum-treats 3y ago
      > You broke the site guidelines egregiously in this thread with flamewar, snark, and even personal attack. Please do explain the algorithm that resolves to a True statement here. I can't find a link to the codebase for the sentiment and opinion analysis models. > We ban accounts that post like this because it destroys what the site is for. I don't see warnings on other interlocutor accounts. Seems very one-sided, which is of questionable moderation. Not just on this comment thread but many others. I don't see these warnings anywhere. Again, this points to subjectivity. I searched for subjectivity in moderation on the link you provided and it returned no results. Please can you also share the algorithms used in moderation for HN? Thanks very much!
- brightlancer 3y ago
  > > 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. It's ironic that in a threat discussing leadership as a discipline, someone would make an appeal to "lived experience". Unless someone here was with you, they don't know (nor do I) what your personal experience was. Similarly, you don't know everyone else's personal experiences. OTOH, we have these wonderful social sciences which go around and collect data from lots and lots of individuals, draw conclusions and publish them for other people to read and learn. The data and conclusions might not be representative of your experience, but it's rubbish for you to handwave it away for your individual, subjective experience.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > It's ironic that in a threat discussing leadership as a discipline, someone would make an appeal to "lived experience". It's not ironic at all. Leadership itself is something that can't be studied purely from the outside. > we have these wonderful social sciences I don't share your rosy view of these so-called sciences. But that's not something we're going to resolve here.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
pdonis 3y ago
> You've tricked the brain into believing a specific version of reality that is not objective reality Whereas civilians, of course, have a completely accurate view of objective reality with no illusions? It is to laugh.
- scrum-treats 3y ago
  >> You've tricked the brain into believing a specific version of reality that is not objective reality > Whereas civilians, of course, have a completely accurate view of objective reality with no illusions? It is to laugh. No. It's just different; in some ways radically different than the niche reality of "military." .... That's the point. Are you still in the military because you are sending clear signals that you are not in control of your own mind. Which gets into the illusion of free will and if that's real, but there's a boundedness that is tight or loose depending on the individual/group. And yours seems quite tight. As in, constricted from any thoughts outside your military programming. Scary stuff.
  - laserdancepony 3y ago
    And you are the only one who can see clearly through everything. How nice.
    - scrum-treats 3y ago
      > And you are the only one who can see clearly through everything. How nice. I'm not the sole arbiter of truth. Lots of people research and write about these topics. I'm also autistic and this happens to be one of the things I research to death (being human, how humans "human", power dynamics, group dynamics). I really like this topic actually. Apologies if I'm coming off callous. It's not my intention.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > It's just different If you mean that civilian life is different from military life, yes, of course, that's to be expected. That doesn't mean civilian "reality" is somehow more valid or more accurate than military "reality". Indeed, since most civilians aren't expected to routinely risk their lives as part of their job, one would expect civilians' view of reality to be missing some things. (And looking at civilians whose jobs do routinely involve risking one's life, such as police or firefighting, might give quite a different take on even civilian "reality".) > Are you still in the military No. I already said elsewhere in this discussion that my military experience is several decades old. > you are sending clear signals that you are not in control of your own mind Spare me your patronizing. You are welcome to your uninformed opinions, but don't expect me to respect them. I see no point in further discussion with you.
pdonis 3y ago
> there's so much PTSD/cognitive dissonance that the human brain and body is now forced to endure post-service Combat is traumatic by its very nature. Of course many people who experience it are going to have PTSD, just like with any other traumatic experience. As for "cognitive dissonance", anyone who has been through a particular harrowing experience is going to have some difficulty dealing with people who not only have never had the experience, but devalue it because they don't understand it. The only way to fix that is to (a) teach civilians that people who volunteer to serve their country in the military deserve respect, not disdain, and (b) teach our political leaders that they need to not use the military unless it's really necessary, so that the public will support such usage instead of protesting against it.
- scrum-treats 3y ago
  > but devalue it because they don't understand it. No one is devaluing it. I'm certainly not. Rather it is highlighting that humans are vulnerable, by genetic design. And it requires actual help to reprogram the brain. To take on the burden alone is quite a difficult and insurmountable task. For your (a) and (b) you are definitely entitled to your opinion on how you want to be viewed and treated in the world. This is very much the same as women arguing that men should not have a say over their bodies; bodily autonomy is a human right, not a right reserved for only white men.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > humans are vulnerable, by genetic design. And it requires actual help to reprogram the brain Sure, I'm not disputing this at all. I'm just pointing out that this has nothing whatever to do with the military being a cult. It has to do with the nature of the military as an occupation. The military is certainly not the only occupation that has traumatic experiences as an expected part of service, and that needs to have a plan in place to deal with that. > For your (a) and (b) you are definitely entitled to your opinion on how you want to be viewed and treated in the world. It's not a matter of my or anyone's wanting to be viewed a certain way. It's a matter of understanding as a country why we have a military at all and what it is for, and holding our political leaders accountable for making appropriate use of the military and giving it the support it needs.

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.
  - scrum-treats 3y ago
    > You broke the site guidelines egregiously in this thread with flamewar, snark, and even personal attack. Please do explain the algorithm that resolves to a True statement here. I can't find a link to the codebase for the sentiment and opinion analysis models. > We ban accounts that post like this because it destroys what the site is for. I don't see warnings on other interlocutor accounts. Seems very one-sided, which is of questionable moderation. Not just on this comment thread but many others. I don't see these warnings anywhere. Again, this points to subjectivity. I searched for subjectivity in moderation on the link you provided and it returned no results. Please can you also share the algorithms used in moderation for HN? Thanks very much!
brightlancer 3y ago
> > 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. It's ironic that in a threat discussing leadership as a discipline, someone would make an appeal to "lived experience". Unless someone here was with you, they don't know (nor do I) what your personal experience was. Similarly, you don't know everyone else's personal experiences. OTOH, we have these wonderful social sciences which go around and collect data from lots and lots of individuals, draw conclusions and publish them for other people to read and learn. The data and conclusions might not be representative of your experience, but it's rubbish for you to handwave it away for your individual, subjective experience.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > It's ironic that in a threat discussing leadership as a discipline, someone would make an appeal to "lived experience". It's not ironic at all. Leadership itself is something that can't be studied purely from the outside. > we have these wonderful social sciences I don't share your rosy view of these so-called sciences. But that's not something we're going to resolve here.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

pdonis 3y ago

> You've tricked the brain into believing a specific version of reality that is not objective reality Whereas civilians, of course, have a completely accurate view of objective reality with no illusions? It is to laugh.

scrum-treats 3y ago
>> You've tricked the brain into believing a specific version of reality that is not objective reality > Whereas civilians, of course, have a completely accurate view of objective reality with no illusions? It is to laugh. No. It's just different; in some ways radically different than the niche reality of "military." .... That's the point. Are you still in the military because you are sending clear signals that you are not in control of your own mind. Which gets into the illusion of free will and if that's real, but there's a boundedness that is tight or loose depending on the individual/group. And yours seems quite tight. As in, constricted from any thoughts outside your military programming. Scary stuff.
- laserdancepony 3y ago
  And you are the only one who can see clearly through everything. How nice.
  - scrum-treats 3y ago
    > And you are the only one who can see clearly through everything. How nice. I'm not the sole arbiter of truth. Lots of people research and write about these topics. I'm also autistic and this happens to be one of the things I research to death (being human, how humans "human", power dynamics, group dynamics). I really like this topic actually. Apologies if I'm coming off callous. It's not my intention.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > It's just different If you mean that civilian life is different from military life, yes, of course, that's to be expected. That doesn't mean civilian "reality" is somehow more valid or more accurate than military "reality". Indeed, since most civilians aren't expected to routinely risk their lives as part of their job, one would expect civilians' view of reality to be missing some things. (And looking at civilians whose jobs do routinely involve risking one's life, such as police or firefighting, might give quite a different take on even civilian "reality".) > Are you still in the military No. I already said elsewhere in this discussion that my military experience is several decades old. > you are sending clear signals that you are not in control of your own mind Spare me your patronizing. You are welcome to your uninformed opinions, but don't expect me to respect them. I see no point in further discussion with you.

pdonis 3y ago

> there's so much PTSD/cognitive dissonance that the human brain and body is now forced to endure post-service Combat is traumatic by its very nature. Of course many people who experience it are going to have PTSD, just like with any other traumatic experience. As for "cognitive dissonance", anyone who has been through a particular harrowing experience is going to have some difficulty dealing with people who not only have never had the experience, but devalue it because they don't understand it. The only way to fix that is to (a) teach civilians that people who volunteer to serve their country in the military deserve respect, not disdain, and (b) teach our political leaders that they need to not use the military unless it's really necessary, so that the public will support such usage instead of protesting against it.

scrum-treats 3y ago
> but devalue it because they don't understand it. No one is devaluing it. I'm certainly not. Rather it is highlighting that humans are vulnerable, by genetic design. And it requires actual help to reprogram the brain. To take on the burden alone is quite a difficult and insurmountable task. For your (a) and (b) you are definitely entitled to your opinion on how you want to be viewed and treated in the world. This is very much the same as women arguing that men should not have a say over their bodies; bodily autonomy is a human right, not a right reserved for only white men.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > humans are vulnerable, by genetic design. And it requires actual help to reprogram the brain Sure, I'm not disputing this at all. I'm just pointing out that this has nothing whatever to do with the military being a cult. It has to do with the nature of the military as an occupation. The military is certainly not the only occupation that has traumatic experiences as an expected part of service, and that needs to have a plan in place to deal with that. > For your (a) and (b) you are definitely entitled to your opinion on how you want to be viewed and treated in the world. It's not a matter of my or anyone's wanting to be viewed a certain way. It's a matter of understanding as a country why we have a military at all and what it is for, and holding our political leaders accountable for making appropriate use of the military and giving it the support it needs.