
In Battle, Hunches Prove to Be Valuable Assets - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/health/research/28brain.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
======
davi
"In the Army study of I.E.D. detection, researchers found that troops who were
good at spotting bombs in simulations tended to think of themselves as
predators, not prey. That frame of mind by itself may work to reduce anxiety,
experts say."

This was interesting -- I wonder if it's translatable to complex workplaces,
rife with politics & unpredictable threats to the success of one's project.

The article also brings to mind this New Yorker article on trackers:
[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/11/29/041129fa_fact_ti...](http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/11/29/041129fa_fact_tietz)

------
DannoHung
God damn. They used two little kids as bait. Fucking monsters.

~~~
ovi256
All's fair in love and war.

Better yet, ask yourself what made them so desperate as to disregard the
principle you imply.

~~~
DannoHung
Can you clarify your remark?

~~~
ovi256
The rules of war have changed drastically in the course of history, in the
sense that despised heresies become orthodoxy. Think about the pike, longbox,
crossbox and musket - these are just a few examples that come to mind - they
were despised as they allowed peasant footmen to take down aristocratic
knights with impunity, and the last two, without much training. As such, they
were regarded as heinous and unjust weapons that threatened the social order.
Of course, pragmatism won, as it always does, and they became part of the
traditional arsenal - and changed the social order. Who needs knights when
they cannot win a battle ?

It could be that what we today call terrorism will become part of orthodox
warfare in several generation. Military theorist already call it 4th
generation warfare. Basicaly, it's just a strategy, very similar to guerilla,
that allows a poor unequiped militia to keep in check what we traditionally
perceive as the strongest best equipped army.

~~~
DannoHung
There is a distinction though, isn't there? All of the heresies you listed
were technological innovations that changed the dynamics of warfare. The thing
I find deplorable is that unmistakable innocents were used as bait to attempt
to lure in an enemy that was trying to give aid. It doesn't prey upon the
structural disadvantages or technological disadvantages of the superior force,
it preys upon their basic empathy for people that are suffering. Terrorism in
general is more about not attacking a superior force but instead attacking
something else to somehow, effectively or not, hurt the superior force.

I shudder to think that that sort of paradigm would become dominant. Warplanes
explicitly targeting schools and hospitals because they are the most
demoralizing and disruptive targets, using hunter/killer drones to gun down
anyone without a FFID, it's all unconscionable when you extend it to its
conclusion.

I also really hope that you don't think it's perfectly fine on a personal
level.

~~~
ovi256

      Warplanes explicitly targeting schools and hospitals because they are the most demoralizing and disruptive targets
    

Well, the WW2 doctrine of strategic bombing was not far off. And it justified
the firebombing of Dresden and the nuking of two Japanese cities, amongst
others, by the airforce of an otherwise civilized country. Also, see the
bombing of so-called dual-use objectives (that included schools and hospitals)
in recent "peacekeeping missions" in Bosnia, Irak by the same airforce. So,
nothing new there.

    
    
      it's all unconscionable
    

It is because we were raised as such - social conditioning. You can not
imagine how heinous the weapons I cited were considered when introduced - at
first, their users refused them, as it was not honourable or just.

    
    
      I also really hope that you don't think it's perfectly fine on a personal level.
    

I do not think so, but it does not matter, unfortunately. Nobody's ethical
considerations matter actually. If it works, it's going to be used, and
ethical judgements are going to change as soon as the winner gets their way.

