Can hard work make up for lack of talent?

[jobo]

You can certainly 'teach' aggression, or at the very least bring it out of people. Military training does this. To be honest most people can wind someone else up until they become very aggressive. There's also certain circumstances that will bring aggression out of people such as attacking loved ones etc. I can decide when to be aggressive.

On empathy.

"According to the latest neuroscience research, 98% of people (the exceptions include those with psychopathic tendencies) have the ability to empathise wired into their brains - an in-built capacity for stepping into the shoes of others and understanding their feelings and perspectives.

The problem is that most don't tap into their full empathic potential in everyday life"
Can you teach people to have empathy?

but only people who are ok with slaughter fellow humans join the military in the first place and they throw out any non aggressive empathic people that get through the interview by mistaken, so it's not really a representative sample

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There is a theory that nature effects nurture while nurture also effects nature.

Your actions can alter brain chemistry.
How Nurture Affects Nature – FABBS

We can even affect our genetics. While actions we take won't predictably alter the DNA, some things do cause genes to switch on and off. We don't know a lot of this yet - it's relatively new knowledge - but it seems likely we are capable of more control than genetic predisposition used to indicate.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

yea, I'm not that impressed with rat studies that apply to humans? and I've seen it postulated that putting people in a dangerous high stress environment ( like prison)switches on the muscle growth gene, which is why despite no coaches, poor diet and little in the way of equipment a seemingly high percentage of prisons are ripped. or maybe the stress of there being an imminent risk of being beaten to death makes them train harder ?

but my point remains between genetic disposition and conditioning( enviroment) people have little free will to exercise

It seems likely a lack of alternative activities factors a lot in that.

 

[DocWard]

but only people who are ok with slaughter fellow humans join the military in the first place and they throw out any non aggressive empathic people that get through the interview by mistaken, so it's not really a representative sample

That, Sir, is pure, unadulterated, hogwash.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

so how do you measure this small improvement .?

I don't. You'd have to check the research to see how they did.

One thing they found is that people who read fiction (it doesn't seem to matter whether it's "great" fiction, or just popular fiction) have a higher empathy level. I'm not sure if they've established causal direction on that, though.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

but only people who are ok with slaughter fellow humans join the military in the first place and they throw out any non aggressive empathic people that get through the interview by mistaken, so it's not really a representative sample

Give just a little proof of either half of that statement.

 

[jobo]

That, Sir, is pure, unadulterated, hogwash.

no,
, people who are kind to animals dont join a company 5hat clubs seals to death, people who believe in the sanctity of life dont join an organisation that bombs cities

 

[jobo]

Give just a little proof of either half of that statement.

what you want proof they have a selection tion process, to weed out people who arnt aggressive enough or that they fail people in training who dont display a disregard for human life. just say I'm sorry I'm not shooting this man shaped target asI have no intention of ever killing anybody and your out, or you get a job in the stores

 

[Tez3]

but only people who are ok with slaughter fellow humans join the military in the first place and they throw out any non aggressive empathic people that get through the interview by mistaken, so it's not really a representative sample

Now that is an example of a genuinely ignorant comment. It's clear you don't actually know what the military in this country at least actually do nor how they train or even recruit. There's also countries that still have conscription.
Unbridled aggression in the military is considered a very bad thing, empath is considered a good thing. You can't have soldiers rampaging around like football hooligans, you need empathy to be able to lead effectively as well as understand the enemy.

The days are long gone when soldiers lined up in a row opposite a row of enemy soldiers and when someone shouted 'charge' they went at it. Often now the military are used as peacekeepers to keep apart warring sides, actual warfare is also very different now when our enemies use innocents as shields.

New model army: Sandhurst's officers of the future

 

[Gerry Seymour]

what you want proof they have a selection tion process, to weed out people who arnt aggressive enough or that they fail people in training who dont display a disregard for human life. just say I'm sorry I'm not shooting this man shaped target asI have no intention of ever killing anybody and your out, or you get a job in the stores

Proof that they reject people who aren't highly aggressive, and/or proof that people who apply are willing to slaughter.

You're attempting in this post to show that someone who is highly non-aggressive toward people will be rejected (actually, the US army has had "conscientious objectors" serving many times). That doesn't show they reject all but the highly aggressive, nor does it show that only those willing to slaughter will join (in fact, your statement implies quite the opposite).

 

[jobo]

Now that is an example of a genuinely ignorant comment. It's clear you don't actually know what the military in this country at least actually do nor how they train or even recruit. There's also countries that still have conscription.
Unbridled aggression in the military is considered a very bad thing, empath is considered a good thing. You can't have soldiers rampaging around like football hooligans, you need empathy to be able to lead effectively as well as understand the enemy.

The days are long gone when soldiers lined up in a row opposite a row of enemy soldiers and when someone shouted 'charge' they went at it. Often now the military are used as peacekeepers to keep apart warring sides, actual warfare is also very different now when our enemies use innocents as shields.

New model army: Sandhurst's officers of the future

ok to be fair they just want weak people who are aggressive enough to follow orders to kill people or get themselves killed

 

[jobo]

Proof that they reject people who aren't highly aggressive, and/or proof that people who apply are willing to slaughter.

You're attempting in this post to show that someone who is highly non-aggressive toward people will be rejected (actually, the US army has had "conscientious objectors" serving many times). That doesn't show they reject all but the highly aggressive, nor does it show that only those willing to slaughter will join (in fact, your statement implies quite the opposite).

I didn't say that ..?

 

[Tez3]

what you want proof they have a selection tion process, to weed out people who arnt aggressive enough or that they fail people in training who dont display a disregard for human life. just say I'm sorry I'm not shooting this man shaped target asI have no intention of ever killing anybody and your out, or you get a job in the stores

Now that is hugely amusing. People don't just wander in to an army recruiting office on a whim thinking 'oh it might be fun in the army'. They'd be thrown out for being very unintelligent.
Recruits, and I have known many as well as the instructors and the course do not throw out people who aren't willing to take human life, that would be extremely stupid. Of all the people who don't want to take human life it's going to be the military, the ones who have actually had to do it so you don't have to.

Don't forget all the things the military has had to do so that you don't get your lilywhite hands dirty and can denigrate the troops. The D Day commemorations are coming next month, how awful all those men died just so you can post on here how awful the military are.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I didn't say that ..?

You said half of that pretty clearly. The other half, you're now working to make into a pretty weak statement that seems unrelated to the first. In the context of the first statement, it seems unlikely you originally meant they rejected people who were unwilling to fight under any circumstances.

 

[DocWard]

So, pray tell, how much time did you serve in the military? Or, if you attempted to join, which I doubt, were you kept out due to physical, mental, emotional, or other reasons? I'm curious.

no,
, people who are kind to animals dont join a company 5hat clubs seals to death, people who believe in the sanctity of life dont join an organisation that bombs cities

This, by the way, is a poorly constructed False Analogy fallacy.

 

[jobo]

Now that is hugely amusing. People don't just wander in to an army recruiting office on a whim thinking 'oh it might be fun in the army'. They'd be thrown out for being very unintelligent.
Recruits, and I have known many as well as the instructors and the course do not throw out people who aren't willing to take human life, that would be extremely stupid. Of all the people who don't want to take human life it's going to be the military, the ones who have actually had to do it so you don't have to.

Don't forget all the things the military has had to do so that you don't get your lilywhite hands dirty and can denigrate the troops. The D Day commemorations are coming next month, how awful all those men died just so you can post on here how awful the military are.

they were to a large extent conscripts sent to be slaughtered on the beaches of Normandy, and those who we foolish enough to volunteer couldnt opt out. I have great sympathy they died, but cant get passed the fact they they were sacrificed in their many thousands on a whim of the high command.
the war was already lost, it was just an exercise 8n the Americans getting as much territory as they could before the Russian got it

 

[jobo]

You said half of that pretty clearly. The other half, you're now working to make into a pretty weak statement that seems unrelated to the first. In the context of the first statement, it seems unlikely you originally meant they rejected people who were unwilling to fight under any circumstances.

no I don't say any of it, read it again then ask me to justify what I actually said

 

[jobo]

So, pray tell, how much time did you serve in the military? Or, if you attempted to join, which I doubt, were you kept out due to physical, mental, emotional, or other reasons? I'm curious.



This, by the way, is a poorly constructed False Analogy fallacy.

I think that a pretty fair comparison, I wont buy tuna because of the number of dolphins caught in the tuna nets, I wouldn't club seals and I wouldn't be even associated with an organisation set up with the only intention of killing people.

people of course buy into the lie it's about defending their country , but then dont seem to question why they are bouncing round a desert thousands of miles from home

 

[Tez3]

ok to be fair they just want weak people who are aggressive enough to follow orders to kill people or get themselves killed

they were to a large extent conscripts sent to be slaughtered on the beaches of Normandy, and those who we foolish enough to volunteer couldnt opt out. I have great sympathy they died, but cant get passed the fact they they were sacrificed in their many thousands on a whim of the high command.
the war was already lost, it was just an exercise 8n the Americans getting as much territory as they could before the Russian got it

Your grasp of history is as good as your spelling I see.

 

[jobo]

So, pray tell, how much time did you serve in the military? Or, if you attempted to join, which I doubt, were you kept out due to physical, mental, emotional, or other reasons? I'm curious.



This, by the way, is a poorly constructed False Analogy fallacy.

when I was a lad, there was a bit of high unemployment, and the army used it as an opportunity to exploit poor iut of work lads, by advertising, join the army learn a trade, see the world etc with out mentioning killing or getting killed, to be fair there was t much going on in terms of war, I of course had a trade, so no reason to inconvenience myself just to escape poverty.