
Adm. McRaven Urges Graduates to Find Courage to Change the World - tqn
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/05/16/admiral-mcraven-commencement-speech/
======
jfaucett
This was an interesting article, though most of the points seem to revolve
around the theme of "Never giving up". I found the first one particulary
interesting (the make your bed one).

here's the points in summary:

1\. "Make your bed" \- start your day off by accomplishing a small task.
Little things in life matter and add up.

2\. "Find someone to help you paddle" \- You can't accomplish great things
alone, you need friends and collegues.

3\. "Measure a person by size of heart" \- Judge people by their deeds not
ethnicity, etc.

4\. "Get over being a sugar cookie and move on" \- Sometimes no matter how
great you do things, they fail. Accept it, keep going.

5\. "Don't be afraid of circuses" \- in face of constant failure, learn from
it each time, persevere, let it make you stronger.

6\. "Sometimes slide down the obstacle head first" \- Don't be afraid to take
a risk in order to achieve greatness.

7\. "Don't back down from sharks" \- people/events will actively try to take
you down, stand your ground, fight back.

8\. "Be your best in the darkest moment" \- During the hardest/most critical
times, you must be calm and composed to bring your peek performance.

9\. "Start singing when you're up to your neck in mud" \- Be a bearer of hope,
persevere in it, there is power in hope.

10\. "Never ever ring the bell" \- Never give up, never quit.

I would be interested in knowing what other HNers have for good points they
try to live by.

~~~
melling
Never give up could also apply to posting to HN. This is the 3rd time this
story has been posted and it's the first one to gain traction.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7778587](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7778587)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7796097](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7796097)

------
spodek
It sounds like an impressive speech. I understand people share his values.

The bravest and most meaningful action I saw from a military person was a
college roommate who had returned from active duty as a Marine in the Gulf
War. I don't know if his training was as intense as a SEAL's but he saw active
duty and looked long and hard at his actions and those of this country and
applied to become a conscientious objector.

I think he valued and lived all the things the UT guy talked about, but to me
it seemed he did one thing further. After all, when a country goes to war, the
other side has soldiers who share all those values too. What makes one side
better than the other? I doubt many would say might should make right. I don't
know if anyone can answer that question better than any other, but I believe
he concluded that you have to examine your conscience and the conscience of
the military for which you work and the civilians for whom it works. He told
me that when he enlisted his intent was to defend his country but that his
experience and thoughtful consideration showed him the U.S. military today
wasn't about defense. What it was about he couldn't say for sure, but it had
more to do with corporate control than defense. He felt lied to by a system
that was designed to lie to him and everyone else and he couldn't see changing
in his lifetime. That his participation in the military would force him to
support with his actions things he could not support. This is an Ivy League
guy who was decorated and nearly made the NFL and Olympics.

The UT guy talked about very important things. I agree we would all benefit
from them. All his underlined parts were about changing the world. He didn't
say only the military provided those things, but I think it's worth calling
out that you can get them elsewhere, as well as other things you can't get
from the military. I'm sure he knows plenty more than I do, but I think my
friend had one extra step that I didn't see in that speech about changing the
world, something about thinking deeply and considering a bigger picture about
the consequences of your actions.

I'm sure he thought these things through himself, and I'm sure many soldiers
do. Maybe all of them do. If they concluded they were doing right, they have
the right to their conclusions. I'm not trying to say he was wrong or that the
military is wrong. Everyone has their values. I just didn't see the call to
examine your values in the speech. I suspect more people would become
conscientious objectors if that message was stronger. Or rather, the
government would have to make different decisions if potential soldiers
considered bigger pictures than what he talked about.

~~~
Nrsolis
Joshua, I'd like to add that I know people who have had direct contact with
Adm. McRaven. That's the "UT guy" you spoke of. I feel like you could do him
the courtesy of using his name and rank.

And I'd suggest that MAYBE a person who leads highly-intelligent and committed
individuals into dangerous situations where there is a significant chance that
they might lose their lives knows something about "Leadership" that you might
be missing.

If you have a problem with the US military and their use then I'd suggest you
direct that opinion to the President, your Senators, and your Congressman. I
looked over your press page and didn't catch anything even remotely connected
to the current wars. Nothing. Is that the "leadership" you teach?

The problem isn't the military. It's the _civilians_ that send them over to do
a job they aren't willing to do.

You're a part of that problem whether or not you acknowledge it. You earned a
degree from an institution that participated in the development of the atomic
weapon. You are _currently_ a part of an institution (NYU) that serves as a
feeder for the NSA via the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences. You're
a part of the problem. How can you continue to be a part of an academic
environment that refuses to acknowledge its contribution to the "corporate
interests" that push us into war?

Don't forget that when a nation goes to war, it represents a FAILURE of the
civilians of each of those countries to reach a peaceful compromise. It's YOUR
failure, not that of the military. The military by itself does not go out and
start wars. The bravest soldiers I know wish for NOTHING but peace. Go ahead
and ask them. The biggest doves in the whole country work at the Pentagon.

Do yourself a favor and speak to a few veterans this Memorial Day. Like them,
I know people who lost their lives during our more than decade-long wars. Ask
them if they are regretful or angry. Ask them if they feel like they were
taken advantage of. Spend some time getting to know people who wrote this
country a blank check to include their own lives if necessary. They
volunteered to serve. You didn't. Try and understand what motivates that kind
of personal sacrifice. You might learn something.

Enjoy your day off.

~~~
speakmemory
I think this is an extremely disrespectful and kneejerk reaction to a very
thoughtful comment on the parent article.

One factor that contributes to the readiness of the United States to go to war
that escaped your analysis is that any critique, however mild, of the armed
forces is met with furious moral indignation.

~~~
mpyne
> I think this is an extremely disrespectful and kneejerk reaction to a very
> thoughtful comment on the parent article.

I disagree, given that the comment was in keeping with the spirit of the
parent comment (i.e., using the opportunity presented to hack in and tear away
at the topic being presented).

> that any critique, however mild, of the armed forces is met with furious
> moral indignation.

The best possible way to "support the troops" is to not send them to war in
the first place, is it not? I'll disagree with a "blame the victim" mentality
everywhere I see it, and you should too.

For instance, let's consider a fictional city (perhaps Gotham). Cities need
firemen, even though we all hope that our stringent building codes will keep
fires from starting (or at least, keep them from spreading), improved safety
technology helps people put out their own fires, etc. But none of these are
foolproof, and the idea of an uncontrolled fire spreading through densely-
constructed buildings is so horrific that we have no choice but to maintain a
cadre of firemen. OK.

But eventually our building codes and safety technologies become so good that
Gotham realizes that the biggest risk of a large conflagration is actually
from a fire starting in the border city opposite, so Gotham signs up their
firemen for "mutual assistance" and helps put fires out in their neighbors,
under the catchphrase "better to fight the fire there than have to fight it at
home!". The logic seems to work, despite the number of firemen who die
fighting these fires each year, and our neighboring cities are doing better at
stopping fires too, so we sign up for mutual assistance with cities further
and further away.

But larger and larger fires start to break out and worse, there are nasty and
persistent rumors that those fires are actually being _started_ by Gotham
leaders, and even some of the firemen. Yet no one has completely solved the
issue of fighting fires in Gotham, so the need to have some people with the
training and skill to fight fires at home remains. And yet we don't like the
idea of shady people doing shady things to start fires abroad.

So who do you blame, the people who signed up to fight fires (possibly abroad,
with good reasons), or the people starting the fires?

~~~
jacquesm
> So who do you blame, the people who signed up to fight fires (possibly
> abroad, with good reasons), or the people starting the fires?

What if they're the same people?

~~~
mpyne
What if the dog is phone? What if the sky were buttery?

Or, how do you think it works? Week 3 of basic training at the Gotham Fire
Academy, and the drill is to go over to Buckytown and set a random building on
fire?

------
raverbashing
Not giving up is great and needed more often than not

However, knowing when it's not worth it is a great asset as well.

~~~
dj-wonk
Exactly. Not everyone is suited to be a member of special forces. Leaving to
do something better (e.g. more achievable) may be a wiser choice.

------
CatheryneN
The Navy Seals I have known in my life have been the most honest, bravest, and
intelligent people I have ever known. I'm grateful people like this exist in
the world.

~~~
jacquesm
I can't get behind people trained for the most part to kill other people. The
bravest to me are those that refuse to be goaded into harming their fellow
human beings at the behest of others. The line between 'brave seal' and 'tool'
is a thin one.

~~~
Nrsolis
This is a horribly naive viewpoint. You've fallen into the trap of making a
judgement of someone based on a popular understanding of a particular
profession rather than any factual reality.

And here are the facts:

1\. There is evil in the world. 2\. That evil sometimes hurts innocent people.
3\. We need some way of protecting innocent people from evil.

I'm reminded of the current hullabaloo about Boko Haram and the kidnapping of
several hundred girls from a school. exactly who do you think is going to do
anything about rescuing those girls? Exactly what kind of campaign do you
think is needed to meet that challenge?

I see from your profile that you're in the Netherlands. I spent an afternoon
at the Anne Frank house several years ago. I'm guessing you feel that she
deserved NO protection whatsoever?

I'm always amused at the opinions of those who live in safe countries with
comfortable lives and how they have no concern for the people who keep them
safe and comfortable.

Maybe you should learn a little more, eh?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korps_Commandotroepen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korps_Commandotroepen)

~~~
PavlovsCat
If that is horribly naive, so was Einstein:

 _He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal
cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away
with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, and all the loathsome
nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this,
how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be
part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of
war is nothing but an act of murder._

> 1\. There is evil in the world. 2. That evil sometimes hurts innocent
> people. 3. We need some way of protecting innocent people from evil.

That is true, but doesn't justify anything and everything. For example, the
daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador making stuff up about Iraqui soldiers
tearing babies out of incubators. "War is a racket" may not be the full story,
but has it ever been refuted in a meaningful way? If so, I'd like to see that.

As for Anne Frank, she and others were hunted and murdered by organized,
trained killers. To say "but that's different, because those are _evil_ , and
we are talking about organized, trained killers who _fight evil_ " doesn't
really help, because from the perspective of fanatical followers of Hitler,
they were doing the exact same thing, protecting the world from evil and
degeneration. So to bring up Anne Frank to justify glorifying the military
seems weird at best.

~~~
thegeomaster
Why do people pull out quotes by globally recognized people in ordee to prove
their points? So what if Albert Einstein said that? Are you implying that
everything Albert Einstein says is true?

~~~
PavlovsCat
Where am I using Einstein's "authority" to support any of my arguments, except
that I don't think it's a naive viewpoint? I agree with him on this, and
having read some of his letters and whatnot I don't think he was naive, and I
know he thought about people a lot and cared deeply about peace. I don't even
care for his work in physics, because that goes right over my head, but find
he said and wrote many wise things that still hold true. I even suspect this
may be part of the reason he is "globally recognized": He wasn't just a
scientist, he was a philosopher, too, had a big heart and a way with words.
That is reason enough to quote anyone, and that Einstein gets quoted all the
time for all sorts of reasons is not my problem.

I like the quote, and I agree with it. If you think you found a flaw in it,
point out that flaw. I'm assuming that can be done, but you're not doing it;
and otherwise, why would I care about the factuality of everything else he
ever said, or even anything else? That's just a red herring.

~~~
thegeomaster
You said: "If that viewpoint is naive, so was Einstein", and then proceeded to
reproduce the same quote. You seem to have used his name to give extra weight
to the quotation. I am not arguing for or against your stance here (actually,
if anything, I think I agree with it), I'm just pointing out that the first
sentence was superfluous. If one of Einstein's viewpoints was in fact naive,
that wouldn't make Einstein himself naive, and stating something like that
just sounds you were trying to appeal to his authority. That's all.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Replace "so was Einstein" with "then Einstein was also being naive when he
said this", would that help? My sympathy for Einstein is personal, and I might
have brought up, say, Bill Hicks in the same way; not meaning it as "this is
correct because X said so, and many other people think he is generally
correct", but "if this is wrong, then at least I am in company I like while
being wrong about this".

------
jqm
Very good points made in the article.

Discipline, consistency, reliability, tenacity, teamwork, attention to detail
are all valuable habits..... In an assistant.

If you develop these qualities you might help someone who questions paradigms,
thinks deeply about implications and connections between events, has an innate
ability for strategy with broad vision and big dreams change the world.

------
facepalm
I like it (unfortunately I am very far away now from ever being able to be
that fit).

Leaving aside the uncomfortable notion that it is all for killing people, here
is another question I wonder about: what are the survival rates for Navy
Seals? Are they better/worse/the same as for normal soldiers? Does all the
training help with survival? It would be a shame to go through all this and
then be killed in the first hour of war by some stray bullet?

I don't mean to offend, I am genuinely interested. It seems fascinating if for
example people are motivated to invest so much in training if the chance to
die afterwards is high. Of course if it would reduce the risk it would also be
a good motivator.

~~~
jebblue
>> It would be a shame to go through all this and then be killed in the first
hour of war by some stray bullet?

It would be more of a shame to not have tried, to give up, that's what I think
the point of the speech is.

~~~
facepalm
One could try less risky things?

~~~
jebblue
For how long? Weeks, months or years or even decades? Then you tell those
children how long you thought it was OK for them to endure what they are going
through right now.

~~~
facepalm
Not sure what you mean? What children?

You think the only worthwhile risks to take are the ones where you risk your
life? Or do you mean you always risk your life anyway?

------
jqm
So, how is all this going to help these guys beat the inevitably emerging
robot army?

The robot army will be more tenacious, more disciplined, more reliable, more
obedient... in short, it will have all the qualities mentioned at a much
higher level...

Trying to install habits in men to the point they become machines is futile
because... we have machines. And machines are controlled by conscious
entities. Want to improve yourself? Don't become a machine. Work on becoming
more conscious. More intelligent in ways machines never will. That's the
future.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
The robot army will probably be more predictable. Tease them, lure them into a
trap - boom. Watch them for a while and learn their patterns. Same as with
non-robot troops.

So, make them unpredictable? Their efficiency drops, they become less useful
for ordinary operations. You can't win.

Except by doing what the Army does - they have regular soldiers, and they have
Special Forces who's mandate is to do whatever it takes, even the
unpredictable. Deployed into situations where the regular kind won't work.

I don't see robot forces ever approaching what we can already do with the
right trained team.

~~~
jqm
Is there a computer, right now, that can beat any human alive at chess?

I don't know what robotics will do. My point is larger than specifics. And,
the point is.... machine like thinking will always be better done by machines.
So, developing better machine like thinking in their heads isn't the way
forward for humans. It's a futile battle... kind of like John Henry and the
steam drill. Sure, being a big strong guy who could hammer railroad stakes all
day was a valuable quality.... at one time. Before steam drills. Now, its
simply a sideshow in a circus or a personal hobby.

~~~
sokoloff
Is there a computer, right now, that can beat any human alive at Go?

~~~
dred_blue
jqm here...

There is likely one that can beat *most humans alive right now. What could a 2
billion dollar military grant and a sense of urgency produce in the 3 years?

We have driver-less cars. Exponential development. The robot army is coming...
like it or not. Sure, humans will always probably make key decisions. Your
point is good. There are areas humans have an advantage over machines. But,
the robot army is coming and coming fast. My point is... this renders a bunch
of the qualities mentioned in this article, qualities designed to turn man
into a machine, obsolete. And it means other qualities become more important.
Failure to recognize the future and plan for it will mean defeat on the battle
field. No matter how much belt buckles are shined.

------
Bahamut
Many of these same values are instilled in the Marine Corps, although not with
as much physical intensity as the SEALS (unless you are in MARSOC) - they are
good life lessons to absorb.

Regularly, I see examples of people failing to cope with them. A lot of people
are enamored with ideas more than action & responsibility (and/or
difficulties) associated with them.

------
justinhj
Good speech. The numerous errors in transcription took a little away from it,
especially given the first message about doing simple tasks well. A University
should have higher standards on their site.

------
imakesnowflakes
No offense, but this speech may impress a bunch of school boys...

~~~
PavlovsCat
I agree. Between John J. Chapman's commencement address to the graduating
class of Hobart College, 1900, and "Advice, like youth, probably just wasted
on the young" by Mary Schmich, I got nothing but a slimy feeling out of this.

------
dj-wonk
In context, I think McRaven offers powerful advice. I wonder how it translates
to the entrepreneurial world. Here are some observations.

A. For SEALs, there is a process to get through (see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_SEAL_select...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_SEAL_selection_and_training)).
For entrepreneurs, there are many ways. This distinction matters: there are
only so many slots for SEALs. There is no such limit for new products or
services.

B. In some ways, there are gatekeepers for both. SEALs have obvious
gatekeepers that set the bar. SEALs have to pass their tests as defined by
their superiors. Entrepreneurs have less obvious gatekeepers. By this I mean
that an entrepreneur chooses their gatekeepers when deciding to select a
particular business plan. Whatever they choose, they have to find a business
model that works somehow for their customers and investors.

C. For a SEAL, never quitting makes sense if your final goal is to be a SEAL.
What if you break an ankle? Is it smarter (probably mandatory!) to ring the
bell? (Do you try again later?) For an entrepreneur, never quitting means
finding a way to succeed -- a way not tied to any particular business plan or
technology.

D. As a SEAL, if you ring the bell, how does that feel? As an entrepreneur,
how does it feel to run out of money before you find a business model that
works? I would guess that it matters quite a bit on why didn't make it. Did
you make obvious mistakes? Did you do your best?

E. If, during SEAL training, you decide that it isn't for you, is there any
shame in quitting? I'm not talking about quitting simply due to exertion or
pain -- I'm talking about quitting because you thought about all the
implications. I've never been sleep deprived for days while also physically
exhausted. What about an entrepreneur that gives it all but doesn't make it? I
think there are some similarities here. One key difference is that
entrepreneurs have more flexibility and control over pacing yourself than
SEALs. (One can earn income while testing your business ideas, for example.)

F. This speech raises some big questions. What is quitting? What is failure?
(A) If a SEAL washes out, there are other ways to do public service. Adjust
your goals, as needed, and try again. (B) If an entrepreneur tests a business
plan and it doesn't measure up, then perhaps you pivot or walk away. In my
opinion, neither is "quitting" because you are still setting goals and working
hard.

------
gcv
If you're interested in the training the speaker mentioned, watch the Class
234 documentary made by Discovery in the late 1990s. It's typically up on
YouTube (not entirely legally).

------
coldtea
> _But, if you think about it, not only were these soldiers saved by the
> decisions of one person, but their children yet unborn—were also saved. And
> their children’s children—were saved._

Yeah. Shame about the children, and the children's children of the local
population though. You know, in their own homeland and all, not asking for
trouble or anything...

~~~
sreya
C'mon now, this isn't a political article, let's not mire the discussion in
politics irrelevant to the link

~~~
coldtea
An article praising soldiers and the "change" they bring IS political (in the
general sense). It's just naively political, it doesn't even stop to consider
the consquences of the actions it desribes, except on one side.

Soldiers = heroes, or "just honest hardworking people doing a dangerous job",
is political in itself. It's pro army, for one. Some people for some reason
only consider anti-war statements to be political, while statements like the
ones in the article pass for some kind of unchallenged truth.

(If you mean "partisan", sure, it's not. But I don't care about that, and my
point was not about "democrats" vs "republicans". Don't care about either of
them).

~~~
jebblue
The enemy is always at the gate, they care not that your heart bleeds for
their children; they only care about making you and your children bleed so
they can take what you have and destroy who you are and what your children
could have become.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Nobody is pure evil, and someone who shallowly dismisses others as pure evil,
is at least slightly evil. Of course, this is my personal definition of evil.
However, I stand by it.

 _Traces of nobility, gentleness and courage persist in all people, do what we
will to stamp out the trend. So, too, do those characteristics which are ugly.
It is just unfortunate that in the clumsy hands of a cartoonist all traits
become ridiculous, leading to a certain amount of self-conscious expostulation
and the desire to join battle.

There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which
make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that
on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets,
we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.

Forward!_

\-- Walt Kelly, foreword to "The Pogo Papers"

~~~
jebblue
I said, "the enemy is at the gate". I dismiss no one. Literature and art are
the first things the enemy either takes or destroys, ironic isn't it?

~~~
PavlovsCat
Unless you were being sarcistic, you did seem to imply there are people who
are just being evil for the sake of being evil, and talking about " _the_
enemy" makes it sound like a monolith very unlike to anything found on Earth;
so I assume that gate is located in fantasy.

------
pmoriarty
Is it training or is it torture?

