61–70 of 223 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps that is mostly because Junger's documentaries are all around American troops. I also highly recommend Restrepo, and the follow up, Korengal.
"I also highly recommend Restrepo, and the follow up, Korengal." and, "The Last Patrol" ~ https://youtu.be/KwOAVSprv64
> "The male response to war is an evolutionary adaptation that clearly works for our species." > "It's a left-wing version of the Christian right rejecting the theory of evolution," he says. "I mean the far left is also now rejecting the theory of evolution, which is just insane." The left wing, whatever it's worth, is certainly not rejecting the theory of evolution. Just because men are evolutionarily predisposed to…
> "The male response to war is an evolutionary adaptation that clearly works for our species." > "It's a left-wing version of the Christian right rejecting the theory of evolution," he says. "I mean the far left is also now rejecting the theory of evolution, which is just insane." The left wing, whatever it's worth, is certainly not rejecting the theory of evolution. Just because men are evolutionarily predisposed to…
There is definitely a bias in academia against explaining why the world is the way it is in biological terms. Look at what happened to Larry Summers. Watch the Norwegian documentary Hjernevask (Brainwash) (it's on the net with English subtitles). The psychologist Robert Plomin said this in an interview:
>‘My very first conference was by this old guy Leon Kamin, the author of a book called The Science and Politics of IQ,’ says Plomin. ‘Kamin came back to academia just so as to stop this pernicious stuff about genetics entering psychology.
>...Then he started saying: “We’ve got to stop this talk of genetics now!” And I realised it didn’t matter to Kamin what was true. He believed in what he called “science for the people”, which was what he thought it would be useful for the people to know. I mean, that killed me because it was Kamin and these elite Harvard professors deciding what’s for the people! The idea was that science should serve politics.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8970941/sorry-but-intell...
Suggesting that violence may have a biological basis is a taboo for many people. For example, consider this commentary on a recent study on Chimpanzee violence. The popular explanation has been that the reason they do it is because of human interference, not biology:
>Prof Frans de Waal, an animal behaviour expert from Emory University in the US, said the new study was an important contribution.
>"I'm very glad they're publishing this," he told BBC News. It answers a "long, long history of resistance", Prof de Waal explained, to the idea of natural, inter-community violence in chimpanzees.
>"It has always been contentious - we've had meetings where people screamed at each other.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29237276
If those on the left are fine with accepting evolution, then why would the biological explanation have a long history of resistance? Why would it be contentious?
Plenty on the left do deny/ignore evolution when it comes to topics in human society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "You would think that, no matter what your goals for the roles of gender (or sex) in society are, you would achieve these goals best by deliberately seeking out and investigating the properties of the underlying biology (and culture) with the utmost of academic and intellectual integrity, and only afterwards pushing for the policies you prefer to realize that world." That is how it is supposed to work, but reality…
ID was nuts because it tried to present itself as a description of the past. But if you're trying to issue prescriptions for the future (i.e. what kind of world do you want to create?), there's nothing fundamentally wrong about first identifying where you want to go and then cherrypicking biological and psychological traits to manipulate in order to get there. It would be just like writing a program to get the result…
ID was nuts because of their flawed methodology.
> "But if you're trying to issue prescriptions for the future (i.e. what kind of world do you want to create?), there's nothing fundamentally wrong about first identifying where you want to go and then cherrypicking biological and psychological traits to manipulate in order to get there."
Do not confuse policy forming / social engineering with science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's an entirely accurate depiction, given the article. I believe this is strictly in a modern context, and given that every soldier, sailor, Marine, and airman is a volunteer, it misses the point. We can point at Cheney and Rumsfeld and Halliburton, but as the article states, this robs every service member of his or her agency. The reason every one of my friends from high school went to war is becaus…
If someone joins during a war, I agree, they are usually doing that of their own accord, modulo a few people who maybe felt they had no other economic/etc. choice. But that's not that many people, which is why the U.S. military started having recruiting problems after they launched the Iraq and Afghanistan wars: many people who had previously signed up now regretted it, and the supply of new volunteers dwindled. My o…
To this day I feel bad for those who fought in Iraq (2003), because I think many (most?) were duped. Yet that urge remains. Perhaps the years of recruitment tools disguised as video games and the notion of the "warrior" were just far too ingrained in my head, but I entered high school (in fact, I started in middle school in a pre-JROTC program to get a head start over the others) dove head first into the NJROTC program with the intent to get a head start on enlistment. I ate that shit up! Ultimately, after a series of (un)fortunate events, I walked out of high school with a jaded outlook and a full-ride scholarship, so enlistment wasn't in the cards. I don't quite know just what it is that keeps enticing me, maybe it's a desire for a fresh start, maybe I'm a bloodthirsty baby-killer, or maybe it's biological. It's probably a mix of many things, but I can't help but think there is a desire to prove oneself as a man. I'm very introspective, but I just cannot put my finger on what it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I also highly recommend Restrepo, and the follow up, Korengal." and, "The Last Patrol" ~ https://youtu.be/KwOAVSprv64
The only reason I did not add it to the list is that I have yet to see it, and in fact did not know it existed until today, but if it's half as good as the others than it is still better than most.
Coming home is the hardest bit, this is what O’Bryne, and Junger are showing. A book-end to the original posted (parent) article. What happens when you try to re-integrate into normal society, with the trauma and baggage associated with combat then coming from a place where you put the group first to a place where you put yourself first?
"We" v's "Me".
More reading:
- http://time.com/3594997/battle-scarred-sebastian-jungers-las...
- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/arts/in-the-last-patrol-se...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone joins during a war, I agree, they are usually doing that of their own accord, modulo a few people who maybe felt they had no other economic/etc. choice. But that's not that many people, which is why the U.S. military started having recruiting problems after they launched the Iraq and Afghanistan wars: many people who had previously signed up now regretted it, and the supply of new volunteers dwindled. My o…
We certainly have a time difference, I was born in '93, so we all came of age throughout the war, and by the time we graduated (2011) and could enlist, the war had raged and begun to wane. The cards had fallen, and anyone with half a brain could look at the facts for what had happened. My view of the US, by that point, had morphed from that of a patriot to that of a dissident. Given the NSA revelations, I could almos…
The ones interested in the "regular" military I remember thinking of it as more like a kind of adult boy scouts: a good place to develop some self-discipline, physical fitness, ability to work closely with teammates, etc., and maybe gain useful skills depending on your specialty. All the while doing some kind of vaguely patriotic duty deterring China simply by existing and maintaining/flexing some advanced technology. But going to an actual hot shooting war wasn't really the goal. The idea was to do your tour of duty, get honorably discharged, and then either get a job, or go to college on the GI bill. Either way a military tour probably would look good on the resume. Some people also had more specific interests, usually having something to do with technology (but maybe this is because of who my friends were), e.g. if you want to work on nuclear-powered ships or advanced jets, the military is where they are. The recruiters really played up the tech angle when visiting my high school, almost downplaying the "military" aspects. I guess they have probably changed their pitch in the intervening years...
It is funny how the whole argument of masculinity is based on the American experience. A good control study would be somewhere where male rites of passage still exist, but men also still go to war (most conservative Asian societies for example).
Perhaps that is mostly because Junger's documentaries are all around American troops. I also highly recommend Restrepo, and the follow up, Korengal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the whole article, subject matter, and journey he explores is American. It's investigative at its best in that it explores why people make these decisions, and their decisions are strongly rooted in the ever-changing American society. Tangentially, I might be alone in this, but I consider great journalism to be like great science - it's able to discern the fundamental mechanics of an issue, but they're also not…
"Yeah, the whole article, subject matter, and journey he explores is American." and yet it's universal. By training Junger is a anthropologist and if you read "War" you'll see the stories and themes he explains can be applied equally from Roman to the modern warrior. [0] http://www.amazon.com/WAR-Sebastian-Junger/dp/B0085RZFDC
In most cultures and societies males start life on the female side along their mothers. They are special, they are beloved, they are cared for – but they are also objects. When entering adolescence and adulthood, males are essentially losing their identity. They are no more special or unique, they are disposable (as in "women and children first") — and they have to accept this insult. They have to redefine themselves. Moreover, there are some preconditions in most cultures to becoming eligible as a subject. Some of these are related to inheritance, but it really goes a bit deeper than that. So, if they are not born rich or not the eldest son, they are asked to prove they were eligible for being a valued member of society. One way to do so is founding and supporting a family, but there are also preconditions here. To most, the final proof is showing their willingness and to prove being able to "burn themselves" (sometimes literally as in the trenches of war) for societies sake, to accept disposability. (Staying up late coding is yet another way of burning yourself, while not that drastic.) — This may be underpinned by an institution known in some cultures, the institutions of "sworn virgins", where women would enter the male side on the precondition of never returning the realms of female definitions. Ever thereafter they are part of the male side and accepted as males, but they also have to adhere to the socials contracts related to this definition. — Following to this, war is a major means of regaining identity and uniqueness – and becoming an eligible member of society. Small wonder that this often connected with pride.
In my humble opinion, these patterns are also to be observed in the discussion of gender diversity in IT and other male dominated environments. Most of the objections and/or insults against females are rather pretexts or symptoms for a basic mistrust against members who do not adhere to the laws of disposability. (Problems often evaporate as the gender-definitions are crossed by "sworn virgin coders". But this isn't a solution to the problem at all.) In this context, the presence and acceptance of "real females" is a real threat to the construction of these environments. This isn't just a show. It's more about accepting that these are not protected realms of males joined in their attempt to become eligible to the honors of society, accepting that these environments are rather part of society themselves. (So, is coding war? Swallow your pride. Nobody should be forced to burn. Does this align with the structures of business as we know it? No. – Hint: Businesses are not only burning money.)