11–20 of 21 posts
tl;dr Yes? No?
If you want to get any where in tech your going to have to learn to read much longer document's than a two page magazine article. Let alone pass the airport test to get any where at work.
Odds are I'll get downvoted for this. Did calculus Exist in 3 B.C.? Did the Earth orbit around the Sun in 2800 B.C.? Did dinosaurs exist way, way back in the day? My point being, does discovering something suddenly mean it exists? Perhaps things do not suddenly exist, perhaps they are discovered. Math has always existed. It still exists to this day. Math is discovered. The rules don't change. PTSD exists. It existed…
> Math has always existed. It still exists to this day.
> Math is discovered.
I really disagree with Platonism; I had trouble explaining why I had such a visceral reaction against it until I read "The Reasonable Ineffectiveness of Mathematics"[1], which largely frames the Platonist/Non-Platonist debate as a difference in culture among engineers, mathematicians, and physicists. Of course you're right about the other examples - I think it's pretty uncontroversial to say that there's no crazy dualism / "Does a tree falling in the woods without anyone to hear it still make a sound?" thing going on.
[1] : http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?reload=tru...
I support this fully and I would like you all to consider it. Ino way am I advocating Political Correctitude. I hate that shit.
tl;dr Yes? No?
Of course they did. It would be silly to assume differently - the value of this article is not the yes or no answer, but its exploration into how PTSD was perceived (poorly) and how it was treated (again, poorly). I'd recommend reading the article, it's interesting.
But if you live in a society where it is fairly normal for mothers to die giving birth, or for children or friends to die or be maimed for life (and where it must have been fairly common to see corporal punishment of slaves) seeing healthy men die suddenly in horrible ways may have had a smaller effect than it does today.
But of course, outside the battle field, they had it way worse than present-day soldiers (at least those for rich countries such as the USA). No antibiotics, no rescue helicopters, no air-conditioned hospitals, etc. That may well have compensated for that.
Food for thought: of late, the 'D' in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is being left off. The reasoning behind this is two fold: to feel nothing substantial after traumatic experiences is more of an indicator of problems and the term 'disorder' is unnecessarily negative I support this fully and I would like you all to consider it. Ino way am I advocating Political Correctitude. I hate that shit.
> Ino way am I advocating Political Correctitude. I hate that shit.
There was zero need to include this, it's entirely irrelevant to your point.
Much of modern combat personnel management (rotations, leave etc) revolves around minimizing the inexorable insanity that comes from exposure to mechanized slaughter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course they did. It would be silly to assume differently - the value of this article is not the yes or no answer, but its exploration into how PTSD was perceived (poorly) and how it was treated (again, poorly). I'd recommend reading the article, it's interesting.
Given what happened in the civil war, it must have mentally broken many people. But if you live in a society where it is fairly normal for mothers to die giving birth, or for children or friends to die or be maimed for life (and where it must have been fairly common to see corporal punishment of slaves) seeing healthy men die suddenly in horrible ways may have had a smaller effect than it does today. But of course, o…
The Battle of Gettysburg saw over 4000 dead on each side in a 3 day period. That means, in 3 days, more US soldiers died than in 13 years of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given what happened in the civil war, it must have mentally broken many people. But if you live in a society where it is fairly normal for mothers to die giving birth, or for children or friends to die or be maimed for life (and where it must have been fairly common to see corporal punishment of slaves) seeing healthy men die suddenly in horrible ways may have had a smaller effect than it does today. But of course, o…
What always fascinates me about the Civil War is the sheer number of deaths, and how quickly they mounted. Wikipedia estimates 215,000 deaths in a roughy 4 year period. The Battle of Gettysburg saw over 4000 dead on each side in a 3 day period. That means, in 3 days, more US soldiers died than in 13 years of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
It's estimated that the Normandy landings on D-Day had 14,000-19,000 casualties total (all sides).
The Battle of Antietam had 22,000 casualties in a single day. Cold Harbor may have had up to 7,000 in a matter of minutes.
At Gettysburg, Pickett's division suffered around 60% casualties in their one charge, including a 100% casualty rate among regimental and brigade commanders, prompting his famous comment to Lee (on being told to prepare his division for a possible Union counterattack) "General Lee, I have no division".
It was a relentlessly and almost unbelievably bloody conflict, and yet both sides found the will to keep it going for four years. What sticks out to me is Grant's comment after the first day at Shiloh (which had been close to a massacre of the Union forces) in response to Sherman, who said to him "Well, Grant, we've had the Devil's own day, haven't we?" Grant simply said "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though."
And he did. In the end it was that stubbornness and willingness to keep pressing on in spite of the horrific casualties that won the war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given what happened in the civil war, it must have mentally broken many people. But if you live in a society where it is fairly normal for mothers to die giving birth, or for children or friends to die or be maimed for life (and where it must have been fairly common to see corporal punishment of slaves) seeing healthy men die suddenly in horrible ways may have had a smaller effect than it does today. But of course, o…
What always fascinates me about the Civil War is the sheer number of deaths, and how quickly they mounted. Wikipedia estimates 215,000 deaths in a roughy 4 year period. The Battle of Gettysburg saw over 4000 dead on each side in a 3 day period. That means, in 3 days, more US soldiers died than in 13 years of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.