[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Dyslexia

[tanksoldier]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

I just have the expectation that a grown up person who has finished their mandatory education (so ages 16 and up) can write clearer and show that they have more control of the pen than an 8 year old.

I’m 47 and have a bachelors with considerable work done towards a masters and for me that’s not the case. I often can’t read my own handwriting.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I didn't either. Note my pointing out learning map reading in 5th grade social studies?

I honestly don’t ever remember learning map reading in school. It probably happened but I suspect I learned more as a Boy Scout and in my fathers library. He hold dual masters in History and geography so his library is an interesting place.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

American schools hate differences.

That seem like such an extremely odd thing to say, given that American schools even within the limits of one country can't seem to agree on which curriculum, dictionary and mathematical notation to use, getting weirdness like the a(b+c)/d(e+f) debate.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

It isn't as crippling as you would think as long as SOMEBODY can read the map... and every LT has plenty of NCOs around who can. The smart ones hand the map to the sergeant even if they can read it... and the smart sergeants who can't avoid map duty.

Fair enough. Presumably, the military makes their "dysgeographic" leaders aware of their problem so that they can compensate.

Even so, 10% is a scary statistic, especially in a trade where not being able to read a map can get yourself and others captured or killed. Maybe it isn't as much of a problem these days, but I'd bet that back in the day dysgeographic junior officers got a lot of people killed by calling in incorrect grid references for fire support, wandering into minefields, or blundering into enemy lines.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Fair enough. Presumably, the military makes their "dysgeographic" leaders aware of their problem so that they can compensate.

Even so, 10% is a scary statistic, especially in a trade where not being able to read a map can get yourself and others captured or killed. Maybe it isn't as much of a problem these days, but I'd bet that back in the day dysgeographic junior officers got a lot of people killed by calling in incorrect grid references for fire support, wandering into minefields, or blundering into enemy lines.

First they came for the 10% dysgeographics, then they went for the 10% who don't shoot the enemy, then for the 10% whose eye correction isn't as good under realistic conditions as at a medical exam, then the 10% who couldn't do ten pullups, and so on and so forth, at the end of which pretty much nobody qualified through boot camp and the army dwindled to near-zero people.

Or at least that's one consideration I imagine - the number of people who aren't given a pass already is generally lamented to be too low as-is, and lowering it further seems to not be something the army can take without serious negative consequences.

[tanksoldier]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

That seem like such an extremely odd thing to say, given that American schools even within the limits of one country can't seem to agree on which curriculum, dictionary and mathematical notation to use, getting weirdness like the a(b+c)/d(e+f) debate.

Differences with another school are fine... differences in the same school are not. I could write my name and do simple math when I stareted kindergarten. The teacher flipped and scolded my parents because they might not have taught me “correctly”, and what was I supposed to do now in class when everyone else was learning to write their name?

Later I switched from private school to public school and was a year ahead of my peers in most subjects. Again the teacher flipped. What was I supposed to do in class? Did they expect her to write a whole lesson plan just for me? Naturally I didn’t learn much that year.

[tanksoldier]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Fair enough. Presumably, the military makes their "dysgeographic" leaders aware of their problem so that they can compensate.

You figure it out quickly, and so does everyone around you. No one who can’t land navigate (the Army’s name for orienteering) is going to become a squad leader or tank commander. They might have a successful career in recruiting or a permanent office job but almost everyone in the Army has to read maps at some point, even if it’s just in the career development courses.

No officer will make it past Captain... and few would ever make it to company command. An officer would have had at least two platoon commands, a company XO job and several staff assignments by that point in their career. His inability to navigate would be obvious to superiors and subordinates alike.

There comes a point where your troops and buddies can’t cover for you and your efficiency reports begin to reflect your shortcomings.

...same as inability to maintain physical fitness, or lead troops or any other required skill set.

Even so, 10% is a scary statistic, especially in a trade where not being able to read a map can get yourself and others captured or killed. Maybe it isn't as much of a problem these days, but I'd bet that back in the day dysgeographic junior officers got a lot of people killed by calling in incorrect grid references for fire support, wandering into minefields, or blundering into enemy lines.

It happens but people get killed plenty of other ways too. If an LT isn’t relying on the experience of his NCOs he’s going to get people killed regardless of his ability or inability to read a map.

Unless he’s prior enlisted -NO- 2LT is as good at map reading, laying out a platoon defense, planning a route march or any other leadership task as the NCOs who work for him. His real job is to learn from them.

The main thing military leaders learn is how to employ the experts who work for them without being experts themselves. You have to get the job done my motivating others to do the job while retaining responsibility and accountability for the job yourself. At higher levels you’ll be responsible for the actions of people you’ve never even met. The command climate you foster and the guidance and leadership you give your subordinate leaders, the middle management, becomes critical.

A new LT should be asking his NCOs’ advice and they should be checking his work. The whole point of military organization is that the strengths of some make up for the weaknesses of others. If that isn’t happening then people are going to die and/ or the mission is going to fail regardless.

Poor map reading is just 1 of 10,000 things that can go wrong.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

Later I switched from private school to public school and was a year ahead of my peers in most subjects. Again the teacher flipped. What was I supposed to do in class? Did they expect her to write a whole lesson plan just for me? Naturally I didn’t learn much that year.

When I was in third grade our class was given a math test that was being given to the fifth grade. I got the highest score in either class; I had been struggling with algebra. For the next few years the reaction was in the mode of "That's wonderful, now practice your multiplication tables." I was never explicitly tested on reading, but I was a comparable number of years ahead, and it was agonizing to listen to the other kinds in the fast reading group struggle painfully through reading books (this was in the days when phonics was Right Out and reading was purely logographic, but I had figured out English spelling rules). Schools really did not have a clue how to cope with fast learners. When I started attending the University of California I had to learn how to study for the first time. . . .

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

First they came for the 10% dysgeographics, then they went for the 10% who don't shoot the enemy, then for the 10% whose eye correction isn't as good under realistic conditions as at a medical exam, then the 10% who couldn't do ten pullups, and so on and so forth, at the end of which pretty much nobody qualified through boot camp and the army dwindled to near-zero people.

Alternately, those few who show no critical deficiencies get turned into Special Forces or similar elite troops, while those who have weaknesses in one area, or just a few, get put in branches of the service where their deficiencies can do any harm. For example, nobody expects a supply officer to read a map or have 20/20 vision.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

There comes a point where your troops and buddies can’t cover for you and your efficiency reports begin to reflect your shortcomings.

In a way, that's a good thing, and it's certainly good for any combat officer/NCO. OTOH, maybe it's not so good for non-combat roles. For example, if shouldn't matter as much if a cybersecurity officer is a bit pudgy and short-winded, as long as he's really good leading a cybersecurity team.

Practically, I guess those sorts of folks turn into defense contractors.

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

It happens but people get killed plenty of other ways too. If an LT isn’t relying on the experience of his NCOs he’s going to get people killed regardless of his ability or inability to read a map.

Arguably, in the absence of Common Sense, this is an application of Leadership skill, in that you can recognize peoples' talents and motivate them to use their traits to maximum efficiency under stressful conditions.

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

Unless he’s prior enlisted -NO- 2LT is as good at map reading, laying out a platoon defense, planning a route march or any other leadership task as the NCOs who work for him. His real job is to learn from them.

And, assuming he is prior enlisted, he knows that his job as a 2LT is to learn, and to stay out of the platoon sergeant's way as much as possible, so the net effect is the same. :)