DanP said:
What are you trying to sell me ? That you are immune to conformity because you don't smoke and others in your group do ? You are not. You have plenty of social attitudes coming from your peer social group. I can say this with utmost confidence, because we all have:P Conformity and compliance acts most powerfully on the lines of the social identity of the members in the group. It's more correct to assume that the group does not finds smoking part of that social identity, then to give it as an arbitrary example.
If I were trying to sell you on an immunity to conformity, I wouldn't have mentioned "issues", and "vices". My point was in response to your assertion that, of course he would be overwhelmed by his peer group. In fact, that is OFTEN true, but not the axiom you seem to believe, unless you really want to fully open the nature vs. nurture can of worms. I conform in my language here, and I conform in a thousand other ways, but that doesn't mean you couldn't point out a particularly pernicious conformation and eliminate it.
I also stated that my own story is just that, and an anecdote. To be blunt, that's really all that's required to rebut the absolute statement:
DanP said:
Conformity and compliance to your peer group will take precedence over whatever education you got from your parents.
If that bolded is, "often", or, "tends", then you're right, I've got nothing. If you're making that axiomatic however, falsify with an example and discard.
DanP said:
The resistance is not to the act of killing itself. The resistance is against the fact that you have to put your unimaginably precious being and life in the line of fire and risk death,maiming,elimination from gene pool :P This is the reason why fighting units are shaped into bands of brothers by indoctrination. It's called pseudo-kinship. Evolution have kin selection. Army invented brilliant mechanism to use evolutionary modulated behaviors by changing arbitrary ppl into "kin" by indoctrination. It gives ppl reasons to stay in the line of fire for idiotic political reasons.
Yes, but explain to me why we use silloutte-reaction training? There is a lot of training that focuses on survival in a warzone, but there is training to assess-react in a flash, and shoot if needed... with all shots being an attempt to kill. This is proper in my view, if you want a functional military, with the main problem being blue vs. blue events.
Remember that, like the Brazilian URV, that pseudo-kinship CAN and often does become real, but yes, of course it's a useful strategy... so what? Look at the racial slurs that go in and out of vogue within and without the military in comparison with each war. We didn't fight the North Vietnamese, we fought VC, "gooks", or "zipperheads". We didn't fight Arabs, we fought "towelheads", and everyone else just uses, "American"... The military just needs to be an echo chamber for existing hostility and bam, your dehumanizing is built in.
Then, if you have the tempermant and skill, your place is determined. A better thing to research is the relative cultures of:
1.) Air Force in the era of CQ engagements
2.) Modern Air Force
3.) Drone Operators (if there is a sub-culture)
4.) Navy surface and sub
5.) Army in general, infantry in particular
6.) Marines
7.) Everything under the umbrella of special forces.
I believe you'll find that lower personal risk of death from enemies, and a higher incidence of killing from a distance breeds a deeply dehumanized attitude. That seems to be mostly from a lack of humanity being perceived in the first place, and the training you mentioned. The middle-ground seems to be the Navy, with the biggest spike coming in front-line infantry.
DanP said:
It's interesting to look in combat units which where dragged in unpopular wars. Say, like Vietnam. Look into the rates of troops killing their own officers, in what units this happened, and how it was fought off by command, and what impact it had in the actual fights against the enemy.
Yes, not too many people remember the origin of the term "fragging", as a verb. Of course, that was an army of volunteers AND conscripts, and still stands as the greatest failure in training and execution in US history.
DanP said:
Dehumanization simply have a modulative effect on expression of aggression. Nothing more. It does NOT creates aggression by itself. At most it creates indifference, and widens the segreagations between groups. What, do you go berserk and kill other species like a madman ? No you dont. You don't start to kill dogs only because they are subhuman. It is not by far required for expression of aggression in any form and level , up to and including killing. And no, not in all killers dehumanization is part of the process of taking the executive decision to take a life. You simply can't generalize it as you do. Other motivations are enough to unleash aggressive behaviors, or to act as modulators of aggression. And dehumanization is far more important in dynamics of group aggression, then in predatory aggression of A vs B, individual vs individual.
Right, that's why I said it isn't NECESSARY, but it helps. What's calling someone a "dick", if not a tiny modulation to AVOID conflict through catharsis. You're also right about predation, yet oddly enough you won't find people more divorced from the humanity of their victim than a serial killer. It's CLEARLY not the cause, just some part of the process of them turning their victim (in their mind of course) from a person, into a representation of their object of lust, hate, and madness. I simply offered it as a contrast in a unique psychology.
