Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

Demonstrably false.

Or true in an uninteresting way. Most shooting is in the direction of the enemy rather than at particular targets, but that's because it's suppression or volley fire.

[safisher]

Originally Posted by acrosome

YEP! Not a single peer-reviewed publication in there!

Hughbank, R., & Grossman, D., “The Psychological Aspects and Nature of Killing,” in Military Psychologists’ Desk Reference, Oxford University Press, 2013.

Hughbank, R., & Grossman, D., “The Challenge of Getting Men to Kill: A View from Military Science,” in War, Peace, and Human Nature: The Convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views, Oxford University Press, 2013.

Grossman, D., "Aggression and Violence," in Oxford Companion to American Military History, Oxford Press, 2000.

Grossman, D., "Evolution of Weaponry," in Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict, Academic Press, 2000.

Grossman, D., & Siddle, B.K., "Psychological Effects of Combat," in Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict, Academic Press, 2000.

Murray, K.A., Grossman, D., & Kentridge, R.W., "Behavioral Psychology," in Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict, Academic Press, 2000.

As well, he's published in formal academic periodicals.

Klinger, D., & Grossman, D., "Answering Foreign Terrorists on U.S. Soil." Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Spring 2002.

Grossman, D., "On Killing II: The psychological cost of learning to kill." International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, Summer 2001.

Strasburger, V., & Grossman, D, "How Many More Columbines? What Can Pediatricians Do About School and Media Violence." Pediatric Annals, 30:2/Feb 2001.

All of these are scholarly works. Every one of them would be peer-reviewed. Oxford is a top academic press.

Not to mention that I could post an equally long CV for Dr Phil.

That's really beside the point -- you need to post your CV and theory, or at least posit a theory why he is wrong. You haven't done that.

I'm not saying that everything the guy has ever said is false.

Likewise, I'm not saying everything he is saying is correct. However, he is generally recognized -- even by his academic critics -- for making substantial contributions to the field of human psychology and combat. This is why twenty years later he's still talking to elite military and law enforcement units and his detractors are not. What he says makes sense, and what you can disagree with is fine. This is psychology after all, and it's notoriously difficult to "prove" any theory.

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by safisher

Hughbank, R., & Grossman, D., “The Psychological Aspects and Nature of Killing,” in Military Psychologists’ Desk Reference, Oxford University Press, 2013.

... etc ...

Strasburger, V., & Grossman, D, "How Many More Columbines? What Can Pediatricians Do About School and Media Violence." Pediatric Annals, 30:2/Feb 2001.

I'll re-phrase: Not a single peer-reviewed psychological publication on the issue in question- that very few humans are even capable of killing. I make no comment on his foreign policy or historical work, his thoughts on PTSD, or regarding his position on violent video games.

I'm not trying to move the goal-posts, here, by the way. At least not intentionally. We were talking about his proposition that most soldiers were incapable of killing before modern (i.e. Vietnam-era) training methods were developed, right? The book chapters that I looked up and the IJEMH article and others that might arguably be applicable in your list were about PTSD- which I admit isn't easy to tell from their titles- a subject for which Grossman's positions are more mainstream. (I looked up what I could.)

Originally Posted by safisher

Every one of them would be peer-reviewed. Oxford is a top academic press.

Every one, eh? Nothing impressive there. Well, I already covered the IJEMH article- that's the only thing in that list that might be peer reviewed to medical/scientific standards. Most of the cites above are definitely NOT thusly peer reviewed- many are the equivalent of mass market books. They may be academic, but they aren't scientific. The book by Fry is a decent example- the whole point of his book was arguing something similar to what Grossman was claiming, so of course he wanted him to write a chapter. Even Oxford Companions might get "academic" review, but not medical/scientific peer review. No one goes through the research- it's basically based upon reputation. He got to write chapters in all of these books due to how well he has sold his claptrap to the communities involved, mostly due to the mass market success of On Killing. This is not unusual. Even in medical textbooks some guru will be invited to write a "How I do it" chapter on some subject, and everyone reading it immediately thinks "Well good for you, but nobody else does it that way, because reasons." To write a book chapter you often just need to have an editor who wants you to write the chapter. And psychology is an incredibly liberal subset of an incredibly liberal field medicine... so a certain subset of them sort of like the idea that people have innate difficulties with killing and that killing someone is extremely psychologically damaging for the killer. And yet the informed consensus seems to be that he's wrong. I for one would certainly propose that there is better evidence for the psychological trauma of killing (at least for a thin majority of people) than for the inability to kill with intention.

Show me a peer-reviewed psychological journal article about soldiers not being able to kill, Brother. You won't find it because the only data available to support it is S.L Marshall's, which is widely regarded as useless. (Well, actually you could find some from before it was realized how useless Marshall's data were, probably.)

Not that crap doesn't get published in journals, too, mind you.

And mere academic peer review is an entirely different thing from medical/scientific peer-review. I have published in a medical journal- I'm not making this up. The latter is science; generally speaking if the numbers don't add up it's obvious. (Unless falsified data or bad methodology.) But most other academic disciplines are open to a lot of interpretation, including history. And all some law enforcement journal is going to see when they look at his credentials is exactly what you saw: a long list of impressive-looking publications. They aren't going to pick apart all the criticisms of him- they aren't scientists. So it feeds on itself. And I do get indignant about it because he's giving bad information to all those 'elite military and law-enforcement units' that you mentioned. But other aspects of his arguably wingnut-right presentations do appeal to them as well, such as the whole ego-stroking "sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs" metaphor. Seriously, watch the YouTube videos. These audiences lap up the idea that they are the oh-so-special and rare "sheepdogs" who are capable of defending the mewling and helpless "sheep" (whom they are encouraged to think very lowly of) while ignoring the fact that the populace is almost always legally restrained from defending their own interests via the application of violence and are in fact advised over and over again to sit passively and wait for the 'experts'.

That's what Grossman does- he tells the police and military guys that they are special because they are the incredibly rare non-sociopaths who are able to kill without having complete breakdowns afterwards. And who doesn't like to hear that they're both resilient and special? Thus he gets more speaking gigs, and his income is secure. But it's B.S.

Again, this is one guy. If this field of "Killology" was valid then where are the other authors publishing on it?

Originally Posted by safisher

However, he is generally recognized -- even by his academic critics -- for making substantial contributions to the field of human psychology and combat.

Regarding video games and PTSD, sure, but even regarding PTSD he is mostly praised for raising awareness and being a zealous advocate. So ok, I'll give him that. What I'm looking for is some sort of academic vindication of his work on soldiers being unable to kill. And there is none. It's been picked to pieces.

Originally Posted by safisher

This is why twenty years later he's still talking to elite military and law enforcement units and his detractors are not.

And why isn't he speaking before the APA? :)

See above re: feeding on itself.

It's hard to find organized criticisms of "Killology", because On Killing itself wasn't a peer-reviewed publication to begin with so where does one write the letter to the editor? But here's an article from a military journal that summarizes much of what has been said. (As I said earlier the British- and other Commonwealth militaries- generally think he's a buffoon.) This is not unlike the reason that you hear so much shrill climate-change denialism everywhere, but relatively little organized criticism of it. The scientists tend to have the attitude that they have better things to do than respond to such obvious nonsense. It's a problem.

Mind you nobody is saying that training doesn't help. Training obviously makes for better soldiers. They are just contending that most people don't require near-brainwashing to even be able to kill, as Grossman would have you believe.

Originally Posted by safisher

What he says makes sense, and what you can disagree with is fine.

Ok. Then stop trying to prove that I'm wrong. :) Sorry, felt a bit cheeky, there. But I was just throwing my thoughts out there. And I didn't make this all up. Grossman (and Marshall) have been criticized very heavily. So his work on this issue can be called "contentious" at best, and it is important that people who don't know better aren't fooled into just accepting it as gospel. That's all I'm trying to prevent. Absolutely, I encourage anyone who is interested to read the relevant works themselves. But just just buy into it because Killology is popular in some circles. I've already covered why Killology's target audiences lap it up.

On Killing was based heavily on S.L. Marshall's work, which has been torn apart. It has holes all in it (if he ever even actually collected something we would call "data"). I mean, really, it's not convincing. His work getting German officers to write memoirs like Fighting in Hell after the war was far more important. The man may have been a great wartime journalist but he didn't have even the most rudimentary understanding of scientific rigor. Thus, heck, I remember reading On Killing as a medical student and thinking "this really doesn't prove what this guy says it proves" over and over. So I looked into it and, surprise, his work had been indeed been torn apart. As one example that sticks in my mind, he cites the fact that a very small percentage of WWII fighter pilots account for almost all of the air-to-air victories as proof that only a small percentage of those pilots are really trying to kill the other guy.

Well, no...

Being a piston-age fighter pilot has long been known to be one of those jobs with a terrifyingly steep and unforgiving learning curve. Basically, most new fighter pilots don't live long enough to get experienced- they are fodder for the experienced pilots. That's why such a small percentage of fighter pilots did such a large percentage of the killing.

So, B.S.

Marshall was a case of a historian collecting incredibly bad data and trying to draw psychological conclusions from it. Grossman is a case of a novice psychologist finding this earlier work and building a career on it, to the point that he is now thoroughly entrenched and has to either defend the crappy research over and over or admit that half of his life's work is tripe.

[tanksoldier]

However, he is generally recognized -- even by his academic critics -- for making substantial contributions to the field of human psychology and combat.

Grossman's work on what happens AFTER combat is in some ways groundbreaking. Not all correct I don't think but he is a pioneer without doubt.

His publications based on Marshall's "research" about what happens DURING combat are questionable... and not thru any fault of his own. He relied on the "work" of THE acknowledged expert in the field, Marshall, who only later was exposed as an utter fraud.

"On Killing" probably should have been withdrawn from publication but that probably wasn't Grossman's call. "On Combat" is much better and based more in Grossman's own work.

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

"On Combat" is much better and based more in Grossman's own work.

Granted.

I doubt that Grossman ever considered rescinding On Killing, though. He's made too much of a career off of peddling it.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by acrosome

...

Marshall was a case of a historian collecting incredibly bad data and trying to draw psychological conclusions from it. Grossman is a case of a novice psychologist finding this earlier work and building a career on it, to the point that he is now thoroughly entrenched and has to either defend the crappy research over and over or admit that half of his life's work is tripe.

Good summary (of a good post), being published and being on a talk circuit* has never replaced being able to support your theories with good science.

Edit: actually just wanted to add:

Originally Posted by acrosome

an article from a military journal that summarizes much of what has been said. (As I said earlier the British- and other Commonwealth militaries- generally think he's a buffoon.) .

Is an excellent link with great commentary on both Grossman and Marshall and how they interlink here "It is imperative that our nation’s military culture remain one devoted to pursuing the best available evidence at all costs, rather than one merely following the most popular consensus." indeed!

Originally Posted by acrosome

This is not unlike the reason that you hear so much shrill climate-change denialism everywhere, but relatively little organized criticism of it. The scientists tend to have the attitude that they have better things to do than respond to such obvious nonsense. It's a problem..

It is a problem, and to be fair the response is basically "but we have proof its happening and the counter claim ignores it and/or hasn't got proof of their claim". (it's the other way round when countering Grossman / Marshall of course). The problem is mass popularity and general persuasiveness to your chosen audience is often orthogonal to that.

See also MMR vaccines cause autism, and how claims get popularised





*and there are as you say several reasons why you might be de rigueur on a particular talk circuit some of which are not directly related to how good your research is.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by acrosome

Granted.

I doubt that Grossman ever considered rescinding On Killing, though. He's made too much of a career off of peddling it.

Which is always going to be an understandable temptation, and he's hardly alone in it. It's also not like defending your work isn't a part of scientific review, but again it doesn't replace the actual doing good science part.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by safisher

. This is psychology after all, and it's notoriously difficult to "prove" any theory.

Right I think this kind of the point here. Because you are right it can be hard to prove stuff*, but that doesn't mean we lower the standard on what we consider to be proven. It just means that proven theories in this area tend to come with a considerable effort to overcome that fact with an awful lot of work to get that proof. And yeah a lot of theories don't get proven.

On a similar point that came up earlier, it's up to people to support their own theories with proof, not demand others prove their theory wrong and if no counter proof is given they are therefore proved right (not that it matters in this case as various criticisms of Marshall's and Grossman's theories have already be linked)



*nothing really specific to Psychology about that, and all areas have their contextual foibles in this regard. Adapting research with that in mind is pretty standard

[safisher]

Originally Posted by acrosome

I'm not trying to move the goal-posts, here, by the way.

But you substantially did.

might be peer reviewed to medical/scientific standards.

I'm a historian. My work in publications is peer-reviewed. It may not be the standard you arbitrarily demand, "medical scientific" but that's also not what you claimed earlier. By this standard all historical works are simply fabricated. That's clearly wrong.

Show me a peer-reviewed psychological journal article about soldiers not being able to kill, Brother.

I'd truly be interested in a consensus view in such a journal claiming Grossman was "crap." Do you have a cite?

Not that crap doesn't get published in journals, too, mind you.

Fake peer review happens in science, too. Far too often, and to the great shame of the "hard" sciences.
https://www.statnews.com/2017/04/28/phony-peer-review/

But most other academic disciplines are open to a lot of interpretation, including history.

Which is why your lament rings a bit hollow with me, a historian. Forgive me, but you don't seem to understand how the academic social sciences work in practice.

And I do get indignant about it because he's giving bad information to all those 'elite military and law-enforcement units' that you mentioned. But other aspects of his arguably wingnut-right presentations do appeal to them as well, such as the whole ego-stroking "sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs" metaphor. Seriously, watch the YouTube videos.

I've been to his presentations. I've not found him saying the things you described. He encourages concealed carry when talking to a general audience, for instance.

Again, this is one guy. If this field of "Killology" was valid then where are the other authors publishing on it?

Possibly because no one is interested, possibly because there's not a lot of research money in it. Research funding drives a lot of these decisions. Ethical aspects feed into it as well. I look forward to more work in the field, however it goes. Some others to read include Azar Gat, Matt Carmill, Michael Ghiglieri, Joshua Bilmes, and others. Their views are going to run counter to someone like Steven Pinker. It's a broad complex issue which a lot fo scholars are now adddressing in different ways. In history we call it a historiographical question. It's a new one, and dynamic.

And why isn't he speaking before the APA? :)

He was nominated for a Pulitzer. There's probably a reason. According to Google Scholar he's been cited nearly 2,100 times.

It's hard to find organized criticisms of "Killology", because On Killing itself wasn't a peer-reviewed publication to begin with so where does one write the letter to the editor?

Indeed. So where's the consensus? There's certainly a criticism, of course.
Here's a short read of the SLAM issue:
http://www.americanheritage.com/cont...t-shoot?page=6

They are just contending that most people don't require near-brainwashing to even be able to kill, as Grossman would have you believe.

There's little doubt that the training is better today. SLAM had some "good" effect, in any event, depending on your prespective.

So his work on this issue can be called "contentious" at best, and it is important that people who don't know better aren't fooled into just accepting it as gospel.

That statement I would agree with.

Marshall was a case of a historian collecting incredibly bad data and trying to draw psychological conclusions from it.

One thing I have to caution you on is the insistence that being a scientist makes you better at understanding people, the past, or social processes. I come across this a lot, where the hard science people malign the social science people. Stats and data are susceptible to garbagein and garbage out, no matter the researcher. Pinker's book was destroyed by historians, and he was giving a scientists view of mankind's aggression by just "looking at the data."

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by safisher

I'm a historian. My work in publications is peer-reviewed. It may not be the standard you arbitrarily demand, "medical scientific" but that's also not what you claimed earlier. By this standard all historical works are simply fabricated. That's clearly wrong....

No because you don't assess Historian's work by the criteria of Psychology research, and vice versa of course.

Originally Posted by safisher

...

One thing I have to caution you on is the insistence that being a scientist makes you better at understanding people, the past, or social processes. I come across this a lot, where the hard science people malign the social science people. Stats and data are susceptible to garbagein and garbage out, no matter the researcher. Pinker's book was destroyed by historians, and he was giving a scientists view of mankind's aggression by just "looking at the data."

He wasn't claiming scientists are universally good at this stuff and historians bad at it, he was saying Marshall was bad at it.

However equally being good at one thing doesn't make one good at everything that "engineer's fallacy" you cite works in both directions. And so Historians don't necessarily make good psychologists even if they were good historians.