3 ms·

I think that's a rather silly fear. If the targets on your screen were real people, would you not take the situation seriously? Or, let's put it another way.

by Dove 14y ago

I think that's a rather silly fear. If the targets on your screen were real people, would you not take the situation seriously? Or, let's put it another way. Bombers don't interface with targets personally; they're on the screen. Fighter pilots, too, for the most part. Artillery? Definitely. How about SAM operators? All they see is radar blips. Cruise missiles? ICBMs? People have to operate and launch those. How about an AWACS doing command and control? Their screens look like Starcraft with crappy graphics. Do any of these people see themselves as gamers rather than soldiers? I don't know any who do. The gravity of the situation comes from knowing that you're really involved in combat. Not from how good the graphics are.

politician 14y ago
The Milgram experiment [1] showed that people who perceived themselves to under the influence of an authority will hurt other people when told to do so. The idea that soldiers are immune to this effect is irrational; in reality, this influence is probably a factor in their training regimes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
- mc32 14y ago
  This concern would affect all combatants --it's not something which would only influence drone pilots, so this objection is beside the point
  - politician 14y ago
    The parent's premise that drone operators will act humanely because "the people on the screen are real" has been shown to be invalid.
    - Dove 14y ago
      Not at all. I said that there are already soldiers in the situation where their targets are lights on a screen, and they already treat the situation with the appropriate gravity. I claimed that drones wouldn't change that. Milgram proves too much. It should prove those soldiers callous as well, and they are not. Heck, it should prove any soldier callous, and they certainly are not. As I explained above, soldiers have training the subjects in milgram didn't.
    - pekk 14y ago
      Do bomber operators act more humanely?
- Dove 14y ago
  Soldiers, at least in our military, are also trained to counter this effect: they take an oath to obey lawful orders, and they know they have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. In fact, the modern soldier knows that if he obeys an illegal order, he can be prosecuted for it. This experiment hasn't been done, to my knowledge, but how do you think milgram would have gone if they had begun the experiment by explaining the difference between ethical and unethical orders, and telling people they could be prosecuted for following the unethical ones? Most normal people haven't thought that through, and are unprepared to make that kind of decision. But soldiers have. Like a doctor professionally worries about malpractice, a soldier spends his entire career thinking that through.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - politician 14y ago
    That's fair. It'd be interesting to examine your perspective viz Milgram with regard to non-American military groups.
    - Dove 14y ago
      I think it's present, but not a dominant factor. Depends on culture and training. What Milgram measured was how inexperienced people react to a new ethical situation. If he had tested people who were familiar with the context--fellow scientists--I very much suspect the results would be different. That's true in many fields. You might be able to intimidate a junior engineer into including a substandard part in a safety-critical area, but a senior engineer will refuse. And then he'll quit. It's not that he has more character; he has more experience. Soldiers have a lot of experience. If you order them to hurt people immorally, their reactions are more like the senior engineer than the junior one: measures of character, not measures of how quickly they can think about a new situation. There have always been soldiers who said, at the eventual trial, that they were "just following orders". I think they're generally inexperienced, but I'm sure there are cowards who think that way at the end of a career, too. I'm sure the prevalence depends on culture and training, but that does show that the effect Milgram measured is present. I do have some evidence that it isn't dominant, though. Historically speaking, conquering armies have behaved in conquered countries pretty much as they pleased--sometimes very badly. But to get a soldier to kill his own countrymen, it has generally been necessary to threaten him or his family with death -- mere orders have not been enough. The soldier has a limit on what he'll do for authority, and he'll quit sooner than Milgram's subjects did. It takes courage to make a high stakes moral decision correctly; I won't claim that everyone has it. I don't know what the rate is, and I expect it varies widely by culture and training. But I do think that in order to measure it, you need to test professionals. Extrapolating from amateurs isn't good enough. Perhaps a repeat Milgram would be a start: test all the same subjects again a week later, after they've had plenty of time to think about the experience.

by Dove 14y ago

politician 14y ago

The Milgram experiment [1] showed that people who perceived themselves to under the influence of an authority will hurt other people when told to do so. The idea that soldiers are immune to this effect is irrational; in reality, this influence is probably a factor in their training regimes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

mc32 14y ago
This concern would affect all combatants --it's not something which would only influence drone pilots, so this objection is beside the point
- politician 14y ago
  The parent's premise that drone operators will act humanely because "the people on the screen are real" has been shown to be invalid.
  - Dove 14y ago
    Not at all. I said that there are already soldiers in the situation where their targets are lights on a screen, and they already treat the situation with the appropriate gravity. I claimed that drones wouldn't change that. Milgram proves too much. It should prove those soldiers callous as well, and they are not. Heck, it should prove any soldier callous, and they certainly are not. As I explained above, soldiers have training the subjects in milgram didn't.
  - pekk 14y ago
    Do bomber operators act more humanely?
Dove 14y ago
Soldiers, at least in our military, are also trained to counter this effect: they take an oath to obey lawful orders, and they know they have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. In fact, the modern soldier knows that if he obeys an illegal order, he can be prosecuted for it. This experiment hasn't been done, to my knowledge, but how do you think milgram would have gone if they had begun the experiment by explaining the difference between ethical and unethical orders, and telling people they could be prosecuted for following the unethical ones? Most normal people haven't thought that through, and are unprepared to make that kind of decision. But soldiers have. Like a doctor professionally worries about malpractice, a soldier spends his entire career thinking that through.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- politician 14y ago
  That's fair. It'd be interesting to examine your perspective viz Milgram with regard to non-American military groups.
  - Dove 14y ago
    I think it's present, but not a dominant factor. Depends on culture and training. What Milgram measured was how inexperienced people react to a new ethical situation. If he had tested people who were familiar with the context--fellow scientists--I very much suspect the results would be different. That's true in many fields. You might be able to intimidate a junior engineer into including a substandard part in a safety-critical area, but a senior engineer will refuse. And then he'll quit. It's not that he has more character; he has more experience. Soldiers have a lot of experience. If you order them to hurt people immorally, their reactions are more like the senior engineer than the junior one: measures of character, not measures of how quickly they can think about a new situation. There have always been soldiers who said, at the eventual trial, that they were "just following orders". I think they're generally inexperienced, but I'm sure there are cowards who think that way at the end of a career, too. I'm sure the prevalence depends on culture and training, but that does show that the effect Milgram measured is present. I do have some evidence that it isn't dominant, though. Historically speaking, conquering armies have behaved in conquered countries pretty much as they pleased--sometimes very badly. But to get a soldier to kill his own countrymen, it has generally been necessary to threaten him or his family with death -- mere orders have not been enough. The soldier has a limit on what he'll do for authority, and he'll quit sooner than Milgram's subjects did. It takes courage to make a high stakes moral decision correctly; I won't claim that everyone has it. I don't know what the rate is, and I expect it varies widely by culture and training. But I do think that in order to measure it, you need to test professionals. Extrapolating from amateurs isn't good enough. Perhaps a repeat Milgram would be a start: test all the same subjects again a week later, after they've had plenty of time to think about the experience.