Judgment in War

Judgment in War

I was listening to NPR and heard a Marine lieutenant explain some aspects of “The Rules of Engagement” used in the Iraqi war.

He said that there are normal rules handed down from the top and then there are exceptions that allow the leader of a group to make modifications under fire.

He spoke of an instance when his group was monitoring a group of houses and an old man walked out of a house. The lieutenant decided that the man was not dangerous and thus not to be shot. However one of his group did shoot the man. The lieutenant apparently had the option of either reporting the man or of deciding that the shot was within bounds.

The interview continued for about twenty minutes and I was brought face-to-face with some of the difficult judgments soldier must make in combat. We make judgment calls constantly and some like those in war are matters of life and death.

How does one cultivate the ability to make good judgments?

I think that one can study the ways of logical thinking and thus improve their judgmental ability. One can take Logic 101 in college to learn the fundamentals of rational thought, or one can learn such things on their own if they did not go to college or did not take this course in college.

My guess is that less than 5% of college graduates took Logic 101. Logic 101 is not rocket science; it is easily within the ability of most any adult to learn these matters with a little concentration and study.

A second way to improve judgment is to learn the irrational tendencies that are part of human nature. Our genes give us a propensity for egocentric and sociocentric behavior. Egocentric and sociocentric tendencies are irrational tendencies that inhibit rational judgment.

Can knowledge of Logic 101 help a person make better judgments? Can self-consciousness of our irrational propensities help a person make better judgments? I think the answer to both questions is yes.

no, the answer to both questions is no.

logic is for formal arguments.

split second decisions such as those made in war are a matter of reflex and training, not drawn out thought; and if you stop in a war situation to think about how lovely it would be if everyone stopped and thought you’ll be DEAD.

-Imp

It is true that split second judgments are required in war. To make good split second judgments one must have devloped good intellectual character and must have acquired a great deal of knowledge. Like tennis one learns how to accomplish a difficult task by learning how to do tennis and then practicising.

Good intellectual character and knowledge are gained through thought, study and developing good habits.

It is anything but a split second, to build an army, to see the weakness, and to wait exactly antil the right moment to attack.

Money, time and human lives are always exchanged for the illusion called “control”, which is seen as supposed “power”, and the temporary life of the “mighty one” is a pathetic few years.

logic may help, and may also not help. Some things in our lives are just not logical. ie. art, comedy, women. :evilfun:

for that one needs wisdom, and if you have some to spare, donate it to me please :smiley:

not like tennis at all because in tennis the opponent isn’t trying to kill you.

developing good habits. killing the enemy is an excellent habit.

-Imp

coberst,

I believe Impenintent covered the most pertinent elements in your post. I am just here to point out an underlying juxtapositional menace you’ve -volitional or otherwise- constructed.

Apples and Oranges, coberst. Admit it. You are doing this on purpose. You have to be doing this on purpose. How else can it be? Soldiers are trained to kill. This is what they do. They kill. And as such, it is encouraged for one to minimize ones reaction response to a perceived threat. Kids being used as an example (on trial) for killing civilians in Iraq is laughable only because it’s counterintuitive if not hypocritical (still in context here). Kids with guns, high levels of stress, unconventional warfare (Utilization of guerrilla war tactics by insurgents. People just don’t wear uniforms anymore and line up for battle like they used to),…you do the math. All I am saying, logic, in this instance, could not find a bigger window from which to fly.

If you are suggesting logic in higher chains of command, that already exists. Foot soldiers are sometimes left to their machinations. Did I mention they were trained to kill? keeping a leash… um, a close eye on these machines (by their superiors) a tenuous but desired protocol (given the superiors are not illogical, bloodthirsty killers…there is nothing wrong with this within a given context- that being war).

coberst, I do sympathize with your cause, but not in the trenches. Perhaps in an environment dealing with sports conduct, relationships (don’t laugh, logic could be found here…somewhere), aquisitions and mergers, employer/employee conduct… I guess you see where I am going with this… yes, argumentation.

Sangrain

This is my quest. How does one cultivate the ability to make good judgments?

There is nothing secret here. No apples and pears, no oranges and lemons just a simple question. There are no machinations, no conspiracy, just a simple attempt to understand how we can learn to make better judgments.

What if you decide in advance what you will do in such situations? Like imp said, many times you can not think things out logically (for temporal reasons, usually), so why not think it out logically in the thousands of split-seconds before the situations?

coberst,
Makes more sense without the gimmicks (but I do like a good gimmick). You just answered your own question.

Cultivate. Yes, by cultivation. Yes, I know, this may sound simplistic (someone’s intelligence might be insulted…I count on it), but it IS that simple (the answer, not the process). Of course, I could posit all manner of variables such as home environment, education, so on and so forth but you already know this (so I’ll do it anyway).

There has to be a system (I hear a sound of footsteps leaving the grounds) in place. This system has to be supported and nurtured from the ground up (think grass roots). Starts with parents, then school systems (best supported by communities/businesses and local government with federal bureaucracies playing only minor/supplemental roles). With a function oriented (getting jobs) curriculum (I would imagine due to industrial age bygones. I am mostly, if not exclusively, speaking of the US here), you don’t have curricula geared towards your aspirations readily available (some schools do, but they are a minority). With this technological era, who knows (kids are fast becoming internet philosophers… the future is bright…or we are really screwed). So, yeah, education (start early). If you can’t educate the parents, educate future parents… and just hope it sticks.

Our character determins our behavior under stress and in most all situations.

What is character? Character is the network of habits that permeate all the intentional acts of an individual.

I am not using the word habit in the way we often do, as a technical ability existing apart from our wishes. These habits are an intimate and fundamental part of our selves. They are representations of our will. They rule our will, working in a coordinated way they dominate our way of acting. These habits are the results of repeated, intelligently controlled, actions.

Habits also control the formation of ideas as well as physical actions. We cannot perform a correct action or a correct idea without having already formed correct habits. “Reason pure of all influence from prior habit is a fiction. “The medium of habit filters all material that reaches our perception and thought…Immediate, seemingly instinctive, feeling of the direction and end of various lines of behavior is in reality the feeling of habits working below direct consciousness… Habit means special sensitiveness or accessibility to certain classes of stimuli, standing predilections and aversions, rather than bare recurrence of specific acts. It means will.”

I think that intellectual character, which is that system of habits that lead us to think in a certain manner and determine significantly what kind of person we are, is a reality in all of us that has a significant similarity with ’paradigm’.

What do I mean when I say ‘character is paradigm’? I mean that the concept ‘paradigm’ is a useful concept for comprehending ‘character’.

Intellectual character is a way of “seeing”, which transposes into a way of behaving. Without the habits of character our actions would be an untied bundle of isolated acts. ‘Character’ is a word representing the interpenetration of habits. If our habits are formed in an incoherent manner our behavior will be incoherent. Our actions, in the case of intellectual character, our thoughts would be a “juxtaposition of disconnected reactions to separated situations”.

Sangain

Cultivate is a very good word. Cultivation is the heart of character.

What is character? Character is the network of habits that permeate all the intentional acts of an individual.

I am not using the word habit in the way we often do, as a technical ability existing apart from our wishes. These habits are an intimate and fundamental part of our selves. They are representations of our will. They rule our will, working in a coordinated way they dominate our way of acting. These habits are the results of repeated, intelligently controlled, actions.

Habits also control the formation of ideas as well as physical actions. We cannot perform a correct action or a correct idea without having already formed correct habits. “Reason pure of all influence from prior habit is a fiction. “The medium of habit filters all material that reaches our perception and thought…Immediate, seemingly instinctive, feeling of the direction and end of various lines of behavior is in reality the feeling of habits working below direct consciousness… Habit means special sensitiveness or accessibility to certain classes of stimuli, standing predilections and aversions, rather than bare recurrence of specific acts. It means will.”

I think that intellectual character, which is that system of habits that lead us to think in a certain manner and determine significantly what kind of person we are, is a reality in all of us that has a significant similarity with ’paradigm’.

What do I mean when I say ‘character is paradigm’? I mean that the concept ‘paradigm’ is a useful concept for comprehending ‘character’.

Intellectual character is a way of “seeing”, which transposes into a way of behaving. Without the habits of character our actions would be an untied bundle of isolated acts. ‘Character’ is a word representing the interpenetration of habits. If our habits are formed in an incoherent manner our behavior will be incoherent. Our actions, in the case of intellectual character, our thoughts would be a “juxtaposition of disconnected reactions to separated situations”.

coberst,
repetitive posting says something as well…
Most of what you say here I already had in consideration when I responded in my two replies to you above. I’ll expound later when I have more time… W. has me in stitches right now.

coberst,

I’m approaching this from a broad perspective…; still not taking my eye off your motive.

It seems you’re looking for a shift in the whole organism (good judgement, intellectual character). I assume you espouse this because you perceive something lacking (well, that being good judgement and intellectual character). Fair enough. You wonder how this can be attained; I believe my little tangent on systems covered some of my opinions on that matter…more to come.

My interest? Seeing how such a proposition functions in application, examples of past and existent occurrences, ramifications (I’m partial to this one), …and so much more -if I only had time enough.

I don’t know coberst; if all the minds here in the US were cultivated, we would be sitting ducks. Paralyzed from deliberation. In the interim, fundamental zealots would, I imagine, be hurling themselves into whatever buildings they could set their sights on. No, I think we are exactly where we need to be (for now); somewhat fundamental, and slightly ever violent (in true cultivated fashion of course).

Looking at where we are demographically, you can see, generally, Mexico on one side of the spectrum, and Canada on the other (I’ll concentrate on Canada for this exposition). Canada, on average, seems to have higher levels of cultivation than the US. They are sitting ducks. They have what… three, four individuals on their horse mounted Special Forces Team (I’m roughly estimating here)? I mean, Special Forces on horses? Come on. And, with those bright red uniforms, they don’t stand a chance. Helps to have a trigger happy neighbor in this situation (brings a whole new meaning to wont you be my neighbor. A beautiful day indeed.).

As to our flag waving compatriots across the pond; the French are, on average, imbued with great intellectual character. Sitting ducks. But, with an abundance of leizure, they cultivated intellectual character (doesn’t change the sitting ducks observation).

The Greeks? Very intellectual (were). The Romans did not readily honor that refined quality when they opted to harpoon them. Sure, the Romans copied, manufactured, and mass marketed Greek culture (well, minus the invention of the Republic -the Romans were inspired that day)… just not quite the same as cultivation. I think the Greek were onto something regarding intellectual character development; something about atheletics in youth, then rigorous academics shortly after (sure, we are now heavily influenced by them, but look where it got them…remember the Alam…um, Romans?).

So, the US: The US was cultivated on a hard working, slightly violent, foundation (arsenal isn’t cheap), gravitating to the illusion of success at all costs, and now; gratuitous consumerism. With said consumerism comes poor health habits (thus deviating from the Greek ethos). Poor health equitable to poor judgement and intellectual character development? Dare I make that leap? Maybe I should consult Diamond’s ‘Guns Germs and Steel’ or Maslow’s 'Hierarchy of Needs and figure out why we are still vehemently…um, I mean, inadvertently responding to Pavlov’s prompts.

Okay, we promise to have/cultivate intellectual character after the wars are won, bills are paid, and a minimized feeling of entitlement has settled in. Really, I’m serious. This is not allajoke. I mean, this cyclical pattern of self indulgence can’t last forever,… can it? I’m sure when intellection becomes neccessary, as a marketable consumable good, we’ll jump right onto the bandwagon. Promise.

Or, intellectual character could be turned into a fad through the media (volume being turned off notwithstanding). This approach, though tenuous at best, has a potential of reaching a vast majority of potential intellectual character developing organisms (Sesame Street did wonders). Though some do insist that social interaction might be preferred to television in the beginning stages (the jury is still deliberating). I would imagine parental participation (when pursuit of consumer goods is not calling) would be very crucial in judgemental intellectual character development.

Don’t despair coberst, assuming you’re still reading, Oprah has something in the works along these lines. Oh, you think Bill Gates’ walking away from his companie’s responsibilities for other pursuits is just a coincidence? Well, maybe, … but Oprah can be persuasive. There is an underlying verve going on here. At its most overt, I am thinking a strong political move, and at its most covert, perhaps social/cultural reform ( hey, maybe you can send Oprah your ideas in this regard. I’m sure she has e-mail or some way you can contact her people) or political support.

There is a revolution underfoot here (regarding that whole Oprah, Gates thing, not the revolution going on here on these boards -as portrayed by the peoples front of judea in Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’). Just give it a few years (keep an eye on this development). Have you thought about running for politics?.. just a thought. On the other front, Angelina Jolie has wormed her way into the Oceans Eleven gang of playboys in hopes of having them help her in her humanitarian efforts (philosophy girl might have more on this). coberst, conspiracy theories and hat tricks you say? Well, again, I just ask you to keep an eye on these developments.

With all these variables in place, it’s plausible that we’ll gravitate from highly reactive hyperactive metabolic rhesus monkeys feverishly rocking back and forth on our imaginery high horses, to well cultivated intellectual characters of good judgement. And like all good rationalists, we’ll take a seat and wait for INCOMING.

“Judgement in war” is the oxymoronic equivalent of “military intelligence”. It seems to me that juxtaposing judgement and war then trying to legitimize the phrase with a discussion confirms again we are still generally a bunch of oxy(gen breathing)morons.

For further reading see http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=150192

Sangrain

I hope your insight proves to be prescient. I am slightly aware of what Oprah is doing but as a result of what you have said I think I will examine it more carefully.

I think that what a person does not transcend in reality cannot effectively be transcended in thought either. The limits of existence are the limits of thoughts. Basic assumptions are therefore ultimately nothing more than the conditions of existence ‘reproduced’ in thought. This is my paraphrase of something I read that resonates for me.

Another thing comes to mind about demographics and destiny.

Curiosity and organized thinking are necessary conditions for the entertainment of revolutionary and evolutionary ideas. Young people have the curiosity but chaotic minds. Older people (over forty) have organized minds but a dead curiosity. The future rests in the ability of the young to nourish their curiosity while simultaneously organizing a disciplined mind that is constantly acquiring knowledge of a disinterested nature.

Disinterested knowledge is knowledge sought only for its intrinsic value.

DEB

Judgment is part of living just like breathing. Good judgment is another matter. Good judgment just like anything good requires sweat. We must study hard to become capable of good judgment.

You must keep your eye on the ball. The ball is how to develop good judgment.

I have no problem with good judgement. What I said was that putting war and good judgement in the same phrase doesn’t exercise any.

You wrote:

Why?

and you wrote:

What is the ball?

coberst,

So, our thoughts are byproducts of our surrounding environments? Okay. Psychological modicums of transcendent thought can be interpreted in many ways. What’s your point?

coberst, you clearly seem to seek utility here. I have no problems with that; utilitarianism just seems like a quagmire to me is all.

Regarding older minds having a dead curiosity (I wouldn’t count forty to be older), I think faust can disprove you there.

Now, since I am not a mind reader, I’m going to have to look up the word prescient (did I spell it right?).

coberst,

There are no good judgements made in any situation in which you might die. There are only judgements to kill or not to kill. There is no ‘thinking’ in such an environment, at least as we perceive it from the comfort of our computer chairs. If we couple this to a combatant that has proved time and time again their ability to use civilians as cover for their attempts to kill others, such ‘decisions’ as may be made in the field is no longer about thinking, but reacting. Is the young woman coming toward you carrying a baby or a bomb? Talk to me about your ‘reasoned’ response. Spend a few months living in such an environment and reach out for you reasoned response. We learned this lesson in Nam. The atrocities committed on the ground there by American troops happened because of the atrocities of the politicians who put them in that position in the first place.

We too soon forget the limits of mind and body and the fact that we willingly put our brothers, sisters, and children in these situations and then Monday morning quarterback about their illogical actions. We’re the ones who need to make better judgements. Our children aren’t machines.