Evolution of Human Aggression.

[Rum]

BG, those figures have be studied and rejected as unfounded.

Can you point to better ones? I am interested in this topic.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

BG, those figures have be studied and rejected as unfounded.

Can you point to better ones? I am interested in this topic.

I helped on a report that was submitted in 1993, looking to compare results from WWII, KW, Vietnam and the PG. Early on we found serious flaws in the WWII studies. I'll see if that report has been made public yet.

[Blind groper]

BG, those figures have be studied and rejected as unfounded.

I would like to see a reference to that.

I would be happy to accept the numbers are not exactly right. But to reject the entire principle would require good and credible evidence.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

BG, those figures have be studied and rejected as unfounded.

I would like to see a reference to that.

I would be happy to accept the numbers are not exactly right. But to reject the entire principle would require good and credible evidence.

First tell me why you accept the principle.

[Blind groper]

Why I accept the principle?
Because it is the result of reputable research, and has been published as such. I have seen more than just the one report.
For example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Go ... ce_to_kill

I quote :

"During the 19th-century, Ardant du Picq, a French military officer, documented the common tendency of soldiers to fire harmlessly into the air simply for the sake of firing. In response to this, the military today trains its soldiers to see the enemy as targets, not as fellow humans. The military will even use red paint or ketchup to simulate blood when soldiers hit a target. This type of desensitization process may explain why a highly trained force can often overwhelm an untrained militia; for example, 18 trapped U.S. troops killed an estimated 364 Somali fighters. Grossman continues to talk about re-sensitizing America and how killing must become increasingly rare for this to occur."



Here is another reference, to back up the idea with even more statistics.

http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm

I am not, however, married to the idea, and willing to be convinced if you can show a valid rebuttal, based on even better evidence.

[Tero]

Aggression. Now that's something I know a little about.

In mm of projectiles?

[mistermack]

I certainly don't believe those figures.
It's dead easy to pull the trigger, and if lead is coming your way, why wouldn't you?
The only reason I can think of, is that you're a conscript, you don't want to be there, and you hate the officers, and the people who forced you to fight. That might happen with me I suppose.

But if it's true, that makes people like Zimmerman even more psychopathic than I thought.

All animals are violent. Male grizzlies eat grizzly cubs if they can. Humans don't do that.

One difference with humans is that we are self aware. We can IMAGINE scenarios with us taking part in them.
So we can go over things that have happened again in our minds, and imagine different outcomes.

That's why we are prone to revenge. If you get a beating, you go over it in your head, and imagine a scene where you defeat your opponent. So when you meet up, you have a plan for revenge hatched.

Self awareness is extremely rare in the animal kingdom. And no animal has it to the extent that we do, so it affects much of our behavior.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

BG, the figures for random- or non-firing troops were extremely soft and based on impressions in most cases. The WWII figure was based on the number of bullets fired versus numbers of enemies killed. The problem with that is that machine guns were often used to keep the enemy's heads down, not to kill an individual trooper. Additionally, the bullet count included things like B-17s, with ~13 .50 cal. MG, most of which were firing to keep the FWs away the majority of the time. Air gunners reported that less than ten percent of their time was spent actually shooting at a fighter close enough to hit. The rest of the time was devoted to "tracer curtains".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I certainly don't believe those figures.
It's dead easy to pull the trigger, and if lead is coming your way, why wouldn't you?
The only reason I can think of, is that you're a conscript, you don't want to be there, and you hate the officers, and the people who forced you to fight. That might happen with me I suppose.

But if it's true, that makes people like Zimmerman even more psychopathic than I thought.

All animals are violent. Male grizzlies eat grizzly cubs if they can. Humans don't do that.

One difference with humans is that we are self aware. We can IMAGINE scenarios with us taking part in them.
So we can go over things that have happened again in our minds, and imagine different outcomes.

That's why we are prone to revenge. If you get a beating, you go over it in your head, and imagine a scene where you defeat your opponent. So when you meet up, you have a plan for revenge hatched.

Self awareness is extremely rare in the animal kingdom. And no animal has it to the extent that we do, so it affects much of our behavior.

NCOs who saw someone who wasn't in the fight would have some asskicking to do when they had the chance. And the guy next to you in the foxhole, the one counting on you to help him stay alive, would have some input as well.

As for the 19th Century mentioned above, rank-and-file firing required the troops to level their muskets, so one not pointing at the enemy would stand out like a sore penis. The sergeant would spot those easily.

[mistermack]

NCOs who saw someone who wasn't in the fight would have some asskicking to do when they had the chance. And the guy next to you in the foxhole, the one counting on you to help him stay alive, would have some input as well.

As for the 19th Century mentioned above, rank-and-file firing required the troops to level their muskets, so one not pointing at the enemy would stand out like a sore penis. The sergeant would spot those easily.

If I was an unwilling conscript, the officers on my side would be in almost as much danger as the enemy.
Perhaps that's the OTHER reason that they keep well to the rear.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

NCOs who saw someone who wasn't in the fight would have some asskicking to do when they had the chance. And the guy next to you in the foxhole, the one counting on you to help him stay alive, would have some input as well.

As for the 19th Century mentioned above, rank-and-file firing required the troops to level their muskets, so one not pointing at the enemy would stand out like a sore penis. The sergeant would spot those easily.

If I was an unwilling conscript, the officers on my side would be in almost as much danger as the enemy.
Perhaps that's the OTHER reason that they keep well to the rear.

In WWII 9 out of 10 US servicemen didn't see combat, they were in essential support roles. So, you could say 90% of GIs never shot at the enemy. Cute way to spin the numbers.

[mistermack]

In WWII 9 out of 10 US servicemen didn't see combat, they were in essential support roles. So, you could say 90% of GIs never shot at the enemy. Cute way to spin the numbers.

It wouldn't make very good Hollywood though.
"Gasp at the drama, as private Ryan strips down the brakes on a Jeep !! ".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In WWII 9 out of 10 US servicemen didn't see combat, they were in essential support roles. So, you could say 90% of GIs never shot at the enemy. Cute way to spin the numbers.

It wouldn't make very good Hollywood though.
"Gasp at the drama, as private Ryan strips down the brakes on a Jeep !! ".

There's one "Victory at Sea" episode devoted to the REMFs. I can't watch more than five minutes of it.

[Ian]

In WWII 9 out of 10 US servicemen didn't see combat, they were in essential support roles.

Seriously? The ratio was that high?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In WWII 9 out of 10 US servicemen didn't see combat, they were in essential support roles.

Seriously? The ratio was that high?

Yep, the logistics war was the hardest fought, even if it had fewer casualties than the combat side.