undefined | Better HN

0 pointsDanielBMarkham14y ago0 comments

I must be missing what ticked you off here.

We set up a system where society approves of the use of lethal force. (In fact, many believe the true defining characteristic of a government is the monopoly in the use of force) People are instructed by this system to go kill people.

As long as that's all the information we have, there's nothing to indicate that these people care nothing about societal norms. In fact, they might actually be less sociopathic than those who do not serve. The only thing we'rd offered is descriptions of the cavalier attitude they have towards death, but, yet again, this is not an indicator of being a sociopath. Perhaps a callous and heartless person. Perhaps a crazy person. Perhaps as you point out they may actually be sociopaths. But nothing in this article tells us one way or another. Instead we're presented with these experiences as being the "true" nature of the entire conflict, and then the brutal and crass attitudes observed as being indicative of some sort of psychiatric disorder. That's just a little too much wringing of the hands and over-reaching for my comfort.

There is a premise here: going off and sneaking through the high grass to kill somebody in a brutal and bloody fashion without remorse is indicative of a psychiatric disorder. I'd like to explore that idea. But this article doesn't go there. Instead it's trying to be a "yeah, well this is how it really is, kid." and all I'm saying is to take such stories -- no matter what their slant -- with a gain of salt.

If it makes you feel any better, if the author had written the same tough-guy-been-there story with the soldiers all acting like boy scouts I would feel the same way. The only difference is that there would be plenty of folks willing to take that apart for me, so no comment would be needed.

0 comments

7 comments · 3 top-level

scott_s14y ago· 3 in thread

You may be interested in Dave Grossman's "On Killing": http://www.amazon.com/On-Killing-Psychological-Learning-Soci...

Grossman is a Psychology professor at West Point (or was when he wrote this), and a former Army Ranger, although he never saw combat. His conclusion is actually similar to the author of this piece. First, he argues, with evidence, that humans have a pretty high disposition to not kill each other unless there is an immediate threat to themselves or loved ones. The evidence he uses to support that claim are the no-fire rates among front line soldiers in World War I and II. I think the stat he found was only about 20% of infantry in trenches shot their weapons. The fire rate among infantry by the Vietnam era was about 95%, and it had steadily increased up to that point. He claims that modern infantry training are responsible for this firing rate, that one of main points of modern infantry training is to get a solider to fire their weapon when instructed.

He also talks about PTSD, and that the amount of people who do not get some form of PTSD from front-line combat is about the same amount of people who have sociopathic tendencies. He then posits that these are the same people who tend to seek out special forces. And the author of the linked piece was, I think, talking mostly about special forces.

In the end, Grossman makes some extrapolations to media, and causation between violent media and actual violence. I don't think he supports that claim well. But if you've ever heard his name before, it was because of those claims. He was a whipping boy in the videogame press because of it, but I think his other work is interesting.

run4yourlives14y ago

On Killing DOES NOT agree with the premise that soldiers are sociopaths. It makes the exact opposite claim. He says that tools that have been employed to increase firing rates have themselves increased the PTSD rate to astronomical levels.

PTSD's existence itself (at levels since Vietnam) proves that W's thesis is incorrect. Grossman's allowance for sociopathic behaviour is a demonstrated, consistent 2%.

scott_s14y ago

Yes, I agree with what you said. However, Grossman also talks about the soldiers who do not experience PTSD. And he posits that those soldiers have sociopathic tendencies. And he further posits that those soldiers tend to self-select into the special forces.

W says up front that he is talking about infantry and special forces: When I say soldier, let me be clear that I am talking about the Infantryman and the Special Forces operator, as I have next to no knowledge about anything outside of this relatively small percentile of service personnel. I suspect that he is special forces, and is reporting mostly on his experiences with other special forces soldiers.

1 more reply

stcredzero14y ago

The evidence he uses to support that claim are the no-fire rates among front line soldiers in World War I and II. I think the stat he found was only about 20% of infantry in trenches shot their weapons.

I got to speak at length to some Vietnam veterans while I was in high school. One of them, who was in Army logistics in Vietnam told me that the people in the unit often laid down cover fire, but they were doing their best to scare the heck out of the Viet Cong but not kill any of them. Why? They just wanted to get out of the situation to safety, and the last thing they wanted was to kill someone's best buddy and have someone go all avenging hero on them.

I told this bit to another acquaintance who was a marine, whose entire family had a history of joining the marines, and he said, "That's army for you. My family, when we join the Marines, we sign up to Kill!"

gizmo14y ago· 1 in thread

You're being too literal about the word psychopath. The original article claims, in essence, that war creates an environment where ordinary people can kill without it affecting them much personally. That is, from a behavioral point of view, what psychopaths do in regular society.

The article definitely isn't claiming that the 5% of so of humanity that is genetically incapable of feeling (much) empathy (i.e. sociopaths) make up 80% of the military corpus. The math obviously doesn't work out.

The article claims that war changes people. Some end up with PTSD, other people cope in another other way that makes them look like psychopaths.

kevinkemp14y ago

I'm not sure that the math doesn't work out. I'd think that 80% of the part of the military that actively engages in combat is well below 5% of the population. I'd consider it obvious that psychopaths would be much more likely to join a group of people where they would be tolerated, perhaps even glorified while also giving them an outlet for their tendencies.

anigbrowl14y ago

You're assuming obedience to lawfully delegated authority (ie a chain of command) as the high water mark of societal norms, and reasoning from the perspective that sociopath should be pathologically opposed to anything societal, sort of like the unabomber. But one could be alienated from society in general - in the sense of peaceful civilian life - without totally rejecting all social institutions. In that case, you might be content to work in a war zone and maintain only the most basic connections with family, colleagues and so forth.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse