Conditioned To Kill?

[gumboot]

I find that a difficult assertion to accept; how exactly is Grossman defining "documented" here?

I can recall seeing interviews with those who served in the First Special Service Force in WWII talking about instances where they used their knives to kill German soldiers during a mission.

By stabbing?

-Gumboot

 

[strathmeyer]

gumboot, do you now what a bayonet is?

 

[Solus]

Grossman cites, for example, that the most "intimate" form of killing (resistance is greater) is to penetrate another person's body with an object - say stabbing them with a knife. He offers that there's no documented case of a soldier killing this way.

How does Grossman know that? It's preposterous to claim that soldiers have not killed with a knife by stabbing. Note the rape of Nanking as I noted above if you want proof. The Japanese used the Chinese there as bayonet practice.

 

[gumboot]

gumboot, do you now what a bayonet is?

Yes. I don't want to sound like I'm blindly defending Grossman here. It's just that every point people have raised (literally) has been addressed in detail by Grossman in his book. That doesn't mean he's right, of course, but simply saying "do you now [sic] what a bayonet is?" doesn't refute the 11 pages in which Grossman specifically addressing killing with the bayonet and knife in warfare.

There's a continual line that supports the same contention. The Macedonians were able to be successful because the length of the sarissa removed the Phalanx from immediate proximity with their victims.

Roman historic records indicate a specific focus on forcing their soldiers to stab with the weapons rather than use the edge. They also document a primary reason for victory was that their enemies consistently slashed instead of stabbing.

Military figures throughout the 19th Century report the same pattern - even in the exceedingly rare bayonet attacks soldiers would not stab, usually instead using the butt of their muskets like a club.

Studies comparing the battlefields of Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme found that stabbing wounds were exceedingly rare. Despite the massed bayonet charges at the Somme, edged weapon wounds amounted to a fraction of one percent of all wounds.

Accounts from the British conquest of India also show a serious psychological resistance to receiving or giving a stabbing wound. The same message repeats in Rwanda.

Thus, this appears to be a phenomena that spans cultures and centuries. Correct or not, the theory is thorough and well supported. I think it deserves genuine scrutiny, not flippant dismissal.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

How does Grossman know that? It's preposterous to claim that soldiers have not killed with a knife by stabbing. Note the rape of Nanking as I noted above if you want proof. The Japanese used the Chinese there as bayonet practice.

Thanks for that. That's certainly something to have a more thorough look into. I wonder how Grossman would fit this into his thesis. He has an entire separate section on atrocity which would seem to come into play - as would the dehumanisation of the Chinese by the Japanese.

Do you know of any specific studies that have been done on the type of wounds received?

-Gumboot

 

[Wolfman]

I'd offer two objections to this theory:

1) Authority figures: U.S. military have, it seems, found an effective way to get their troops to kill enemies in a combat situation, when they are given orders to do so by a higher authority. In the absence of such orders, U.S. troops do not generally engage in acts of violence/murder. There is some leeway for interpretation here -- such as if troops are sent out on sweeps of a hostile territory, with no specific orders to kill, but with general orders to respond in the manner they see fit -- but even that kind of situation is drilled into their heads as to what is acceptable, what is not (rules of engagement, etc.). Thus, they are not just "desensitized"...they are specifically conditioned to kill enemies in conditions when higher authorities tell them to do so, or give them permission to do so.

That is not the case with video games; while it might be arguable that there is an authority within the game's context telling them to kill (such as a fictional mafia boss who assigns you to assassinate a rival family's leader), that authority does not extend to real life. It is an entirely different situation, and different context, from that of the military example.

2) If such 'desensitizing' actually leads to an increased inclination to kill (or a decreased inhibition to kill), then we would expect to see U.S. troops committing much higher rates of murder in average life. Yet the significant increase in troops who are willing to kill in a combat situation is far, far higher than any increase in the same troops who are more likely to kill in a non-combat situation.

Thus, again, I'd argue that the conclusions in the first post are invalid. If U.S. troops -- who are intentionally submitted to intense training to remove inhibitions about killing -- are not committing more random murders, then I fail to see how video games (which are done mostly for relaxation/entertainment, not as part of a systematic and deliberate training program with authorities telling them what to do) can be blamed for this.

 

[gumboot]

This topic makes me think of the Nanking massacre in China by the Japanese near the beginning of WW2. A key reason the Japanese were able to commit such acts of horror is because they regarded the Chinese as non-humans. I won't go into great details of the massacre but people were herded into buildings and those buildings were then set on fire. Solders would laugh as the people inside burned to death or jumped off a roof to their death. Officers would cut off the heads of people just for fun. A nice game right? Let's see who can cleanly cut off the most heads.

About 250,000 people were murdered in a period of a month. Beyond horrific. Wiki is ok for infomation but always go for a real book if interest is there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre#Atrocities_begin
That goes into more detail, I won't even go into the rape part.

The points raised above are interesting though however history shows great violence in human nature and there were no guns in the past. It used to be that a person had to be killed face to face. I'd like to believe there is a biological resistance to murdering another human being. Hopefully a scientific study of the brain will prove there is indeed such a resistance one day.

Just been flicking through On Killing and it appears to reference the Nanking Massacre, or at least related acts, briefly in the atrocity section of the book:

Dyer's book War has a remarkable photograph of Japanese prisoners bayoneting Chinese prisoners. Prisoners in an endless line are in a deep ditch on their knees with their hands bound behind their backs. Along the banks of the ditch stands another endless line of Japanese soldiers with bayonets fixed on their rifles. One by one these soldiers go down into the ditch and inflict the "intimate brutality" of the bayonet on a prisoner. The prisoners hang their heads in dull acceptance and mute horror. Those being bayoneted have their faces contorted in agony. Remarkably, the killers have their faces contorted in a way similar to their victims.

Grossman, D.; On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, pg.209

The book goes on to explain that the soldier has a choice to make. They either resist the forces calling on them to kill, and face being outcast by their social group and probably execution along with the prisoners, or they overcome their resistance, and in the process are empowered (an earlier part of the book deals with the empowerment of atrocity). However once the act is done, in order to maintain their sanity, they are forced to deny the humanity of their victims. They have to see the atrocity as evidence of their own superiority. They have to reaffirm that what they did was right. And they have to violently oppose anyone or anything that would undermine this fragile illusion. Thus, an act of atrocity ensures the continuation of more atrocities of greater scale. If you executed a single Chinese prisoner, when you walk into a Chinese village every single person there is a clear sign that what you did is wrong. To stay sane, you have to kill all of them as well. And so the cycle continues.

-Gumboot

 

[Wolfman]

Gumboot,

As a Canadian who's lived in China for the past 14 years, I'm well aware of the Nanking Massacre (or Nanjing, as the modern name is).

However, I believe you are making the basic mistake of confusing mob mentality with individual actions. Mob mentality is an entirely different subject...in such an atmosphere, people commit abuses they'd never commit at any other time. Inhibitions are lost because of the anonymity of being part of a larger group; and added to that are various psychological factors such as fear of being attacked if you don't participate, the strong emotional overload associated with such an environment, etc.

This is entirely different than a situation of an individual playing a video game, and then because of that feeling less inhibition to kill people in real life.

And you did not address my points...instead, you simply substituted a new, completely unrelated subject. If your argument has merit, then you should be able to demonstrate that soldiers who have gone through the training you described have lessened inhibitions to kill people in a non-combat situation. And I will add that it is an individual, one-on-one situation, not a group/mob situation.

I believe -- from what you posted in you OP -- that you are looking primarily to draw a correlation between when individuals (that is, a lone individual or a small group of two or three) commit acts of terrible violence, such as the Columbine tragedy. It is an entirely erroneous and misleading tactic to try to compare something like Nanjing with these events. To make your point, you must present analogous situations.

That is, a military person goes through training that decreases his inhibitions towards killing. If such training results in a significantly higher number of soldiers subsequently committing acts of random violence, in non-combat situations, then I'd say you have the basis for an argument.

But if such desensitizing training does not cause an appreciable increase in non-combat violence in soldiers, I fail to see how a logical conclusion can be made that video games would lead to an appreciable increase in such violence among other groups.

EDIT -- in retrospect, it appears the post I am referring to may not have been intended as a specific response to mine; if that's the case, I apologize for comments about failing to address my questions...you have in fact addressed them in the following post.

 

[gumboot]

I'd offer two objections to this theory:

Some interesting points, thanks for your reply.

1) Authority figures: U.S. military have, it seems, found an effective way to get their troops to kill enemies in a combat situation, when they are given orders to do so by a higher authority. In the absence of such orders, U.S. troops do not generally engage in acts of violence/murder. There is some leeway for interpretation here -- such as if troops are sent out on sweeps of a hostile territory, with no specific orders to kill, but with general orders to respond in the manner they see fit -- but even that kind of situation is drilled into their heads as to what is acceptable, what is not (rules of engagement, etc.). Thus, they are not just "desensitized"...they are specifically conditioned to kill enemies in conditions when higher authorities tell them to do so, or give them permission to do so.

This is certainly a valid point. Authority does indeed play a crucial role in overcoming the resistance, as the Milgram Experiment thoroughly demonstrated.

However, the key, really, is what part of the US Army's training resulted in overcoming the conditioning?

The US Military has had authority since its inception. Indeed, hierarchical structure has always been a component of military warfare. Drilling, to make actions instinctive, likewise, has been a fundamental element of military training for centuries. Yet these don't appear to work.

The drilling of firing procedure for the black powder battlefield, for example was drilled incessantly. Units demonstrated excellent accuracy and firing rates in training. And yet once on the battlefield, under direct supervision of authority, thousands of soldiers simply refused to fire. The documented recovery of multi-loaded muskets from Gettysburg indicates that thousands of soldiers followed through the precise actions of firing drill time after time, and yet each time simply skipped the part of the process where they pulled the trigger.

Given how valuable a loaded musket and shot is on a black powder battlefield, it is astounding that 90% of all muskets recovered from the battlefield after Gettysburg were loaded. Half of those were loaded more than once, and 25% of loaded muskets were loaded three times or more. One musket was loaded twenty three times.

The single fundamental change that the military made, to improve shooting rates, was to alter the training so that it simulated actual killing. Man shaped targets, immediate feedback, target behaviour. None of these relate to authority.

And these are all things that FPS computer games have.

2) If such 'desensitizing' actually leads to an increased inclination to kill (or a decreased inhibition to kill), then we would expect to see U.S. troops committing much higher rates of murder in average life. Yet the significant increase in troops who are willing to kill in a combat situation is far, far higher than any increase in the same troops who are more likely to kill in a non-combat situation.

I'm not sure this is necessarily true. Just to be very clear here, conditioning to kill does not result in an increased inclination to kill. It merely enables killing, were the desire to do so present.

A factor of military training is that discipline is also drilled into soldiers, as is a culture of higher moral value. These are not related to the conditioning to kill - they existed long before any effort was made in conditioning, and they serve a much broader function in terms of operational effectiveness. But as a result they do, as you say, limit the scope of the killing. You see the lack of authority in computer games as evidence that the conditioning has not occurred. I disagree. The discipline aspect of military training replaces the biological safeguard with social safeguard in the form of Rules of Engagement, commanding officers, and so forth.

In contrast, a computer game disables the biological safeguard and does not replace it with anything.

Thus, again, I'd argue that the conclusions in the first post are invalid. If U.S. troops -- who are intentionally submitted to intense training to remove inhibitions about killing -- are not committing more random murders, then I fail to see how video games (which are done mostly for relaxation/entertainment, not as part of a systematic and deliberate training program with authorities telling them what to do) can be blamed for this.

No where in the OP does it state that computer games result in people committing more random murders.

-Gumboot

 

[Wolfman]

On a separate issue, yes, training/educating people to think of other humans as "sub-human" or "non-human" can certainly lead to a greater tendency for violence against those groups. Consider slavery in the U.S., where many whites were taught from birth that blacks were sub-human. A white person who would never consider beating a 12-year old white child would feel no guilt whatsoever about beating a 12-year old black girl.

But again, that is not the subject that is being discussed. U.S. military training in fact cannot utilize a race-based strategy in training their troops, since A) those troops are a mixture of many races themselves and B) you never know which country those troops may have to fight in future.

Likewise, I don't really know of any video games (at least not any popular, mainstream video games) that actively promote the idea of particular races/nationalities/cultures being sub-human or inferior. Fighting in video games is, in fact, pretty much a consistent "get them before they get you" thing...it doesn't matter who "they" are.

 

[Wolfman]

No where in the OP does it state that computer games result in people committing more random murders.-Gumboot

I'm sorry...then could you please clarify? Most people who bring up the whole "violent video games make people more likely to commit acts of violence/murder" thing are usually doing so in reference to crimes such as that at Columbine.

Specifically what kind of violence are you referring to? Again, I would need to see correlations between different groups; if you are using the military as an example, you need to show a correlation between the military and civillians who play video games; but by your own admission, the military are not a suitable correlation since discipline and adherence to orders are a part of their training. Which is not the case with kids playing video games.

You argue that military discipline "replaces" the innate psychological barriers against killing in the military (and that this discipline is lacking in kids playing games); but the fact that soldiers do not have such inhibitions removed in daily life would, in my opinion, make a viable argument that the inclusion of a strong authority structure is necessary to overcome such inhibitions; and without such an authority structure, the inhibitions will stay in place -- as, in fact, happens with soldiers. When an authority figure orders them to kill, that authority supercedes their 'innate' inhibitions about killing; but in the lack of such an authority, their inhibitions remain natural and in place.

If the inclusion of an authority figure is necessary to overcoming such inhibitions -- which I believe is a valid proposition -- then video games would obviously not be subject to the same psychological process, since there is no authority figure involved.

 

[gumboot]

Gumboot,
However, I believe you are making the basic mistake of confusing mob mentality with individual actions. Mob mentality is an entirely different subject...in such an atmosphere, people commit abuses they'd never commit at any other time. Inhibitions are lost because of the anonymity of being part of a larger group; and added to that are various psychological factors such as fear of being attacked if you don't participate, the strong emotional overload associated with such an environment, etc.

This is entirely different than a situation of an individual playing a video game, and then because of that feeling less inhibition to kill people in real life.

I agree, it is a different situation. I'm not confusing them at all. Conditioning is a highly effective way of overcoming the natural resistance to killing.

The anonymity of being part of a larger group (amongst other things) is another way of overcoming the natural resistance to killing. This is why infantry soldiers suffer higher levels of psychological trauma from combat that operators of crewed weapons (machine gun squads, tanks, aircraft, ships, etc).

And you did not address my points...instead, you simply substituted a new, completely unrelated subject.

Settle down. When I posted that your points were not visible. I was not replying to you - I was replying to someone else. I have addressed your points now.

If your argument has merit, then you should be able to demonstrate that soldiers who have gone through the training you described have lessened inhibitions to kill people in a non-combat situation. And I will add that it is an individual, one-on-one situation, not a group/mob situation.

I agree. That would certainly be an excellent test. No doubt a cross reference of murderers with evidence of conditioning would provide some crucial answers. It would be a fairly difficult study to compile as one would need to go into a decent amount of detail regarding the circumstances of the murder and background of the murderer, as well as their psychological fitness post-murder.

I could, of course, cite anecdotal examples supporting Grossman's theory for all eternity. And no doubt you could counter them with anecdotal evidence that suggested otherwise.

My understanding of murder statistics is that they support Grossman's contention, however without a comprehensive analysis of said statistics, with this particular matter in mind, it would be impossible to come to any final conclusions.

Probably the most useful place to look is mass killings. Specific circumstances can always briefly overcome the natural resistance to killing - such as murdering a loved one in a fit of rage. But obviously if this resistance does exist, in the case of mass killings the safeguard must have either not existed (the 2% of people with "sociopathic" tendencies) or been removed (via some form of condition such as military training).

So the question then is, do mentally ill people and former servicemen account for a larger percentage of mass killers than their percentage of the population?

The answer to this is, of course, yes, they do. Mentally ill people are overwhelmingly more responsible for mass murders than sane people. Often mass murders are both mentally ill and have been conditioned.

I believe -- from what you posted in you OP -- that you are looking primarily to draw a correlation between when individuals (that is, a lone individual or a small group of two or three) commit acts of terrible violence, such as the Columbine tragedy. It is an entirely erroneous and misleading tactic to try to compare something like Nanjing with these events. To make your point, you must present analogous situations.

I didn't bring up the Nanjing massacre. I was merely explaining how the book fits group atrocity into the overall theory. I see no correlation between mass murders and atrocity, to be honest, other than they both involve killing.

That is, a military person goes through training that decreases his inhibitions towards killing. If such training results in a significantly higher number of soldiers subsequently committing acts of random violence, in non-combat situations, then I'd say you have the basis for an argument.

But if such desensitizing training does not cause an appreciable increase in non-combat violence in soldiers, I fail to see how a logical conclusion can be made that video games would lead to an appreciable increase in such violence among other groups.

I am not making any claim that video games lead to an increase in violence. I do not even suggest this in the OP. The proposal in the OP is that First Person Shooter computer games mimic the conditioning methods employed by the military (not intentionally), and therefore remove the natural safeguard that makes psychologically healthy people resistant to killing other humans.

Killings occur because people both choose to kill and are able to kill. This "conditioning" theory deals with only one aspect of being "able to kill". It does not in any way deal with why people "choose to kill".

In crime speak, this is about the "means", not the "motive" or the "opportunity".

-Gumboot

 

[Wolfman]

Gumboot,

Thanks for your responses, and my apologies for my reaction on the Nanjing thing...it appeared it was being posted as a response to my post, which later proved not to be the case (and I edited the original post to reflect that).

My question is simple, and I would consider it crucial to an examination of such a correlation. It is whether the training programs used by the U.S. military are, in and of themselves, responsible for decreasing 'natural' inhibitions to kill? Or if it is also necessary to have a strong authority structure in place? That is, "natural" inhibitions are replaced, in special situations (ie. in combat) with an alternate set of inhibitions that are based on what those in authority tell you to do?

If the former situation is true, then I'd consider you have valid grounds for correlation between military training and video games. But if the latter is true, then there would be no such correlation.

To play the role of Devil's Advocate, I'd argue that a combination of factors are necessary to overcome our 'natural' inhibitions. That would be 1) to be desensitized, to be in an environment where natural inhibitions are decreased through deliberate activities, and 2) to have an authority structure that replaces those inhibitions with a new set of 'rules' or 'standards'.

If you have the first situation but not the second, it will result in people who react with much less horror/disgust/condemnation of such actions, but whose own inhibitions against personally committing such acts remains the same; if you have the latter, you'll have a situation much like that in your OP, describing WW II soldiers, where they will attack when forced to, but will still have strong natural inhibitions against such actions.

Only when the two factors are combined are you able to effectively overcome those natural inhibitions.

Or, to take your own thesis and run with it, an effective means of determining this would be simply to study new U.S. military recruits, before and after being subjected to training. Divide them into groups who have actively played first-person shooter games, and those who have not. Then see if the former group has fewer inhibitions (or loses their inhibitions more quickly) than the latter group. If you could demonstrate that those who have played such games frequently have already had some of their inhibitions decreased, and thus require less desensitizing when they are trained in the military, you'd have a strong foundation for your hypothesis. If, on the other hand, there were no appreciable difference between the two groups, then it would be a pretty solid indication that your hypothesis is wrong, or incomplete.

 

[gumboot]

I'm sorry...then could you please clarify? Most people who bring up the whole "violent video games make people more likely to commit acts of violence/murder" thing are usually doing so in reference to crimes such as that at Columbine.

I appreciate this, and I can see how you're probably expecting a stance from me that I don't hold. I'm thoroughly believe that a person who commits a crime is responsible, and no one else. Whatever justification or causal factors are presented, hundreds of others with those exact same factors in play choose not to commit crimes.

I do not agree with Grossman's intention to ban computer games, and indeed I myself thoroughly enjoy playing FPS games.

There's a very specific reason I created this thread in this subforum, and not politics. The scope of my interest is solely in a number questions:

1. Does a natural resistance to killing other humans exist?
2. Do the military employ specific techniques to overcome this natural resistance?
3. What are those techniques?
4. Do FPS computer games feature, unintentionally, those same techniques?
5. Does this mean the natural resistance is also disabled (partially or wholly) in people who play FPS computer games extensively?

That's as far as I wish to look. I think carrying the topic into the realm of "and this means they kill more people" is problematic because A) It inherently becomes highly political and B) It immediately introduces an enormous host of other factors.

I have a tentative answer to questions 1 to 4, and these answers lead to an affirmative answer for 5. However alterations to any of questions 1 to 4 can easily alter the answer for 5.

You argue that military discipline "replaces" the innate psychological barriers against killing in the military (and that this discipline is lacking in kids playing games); but the fact that soldiers do not have such inhibitions removed in daily life would, in my opinion, make a viable argument that the inclusion of a strong authority structure is necessary to overcome such inhibitions; and without such an authority structure, the inhibitions will stay in place -- as, in fact, happens with soldiers. When an authority figure orders them to kill, that authority supercedes their 'innate' inhibitions about killing; but in the lack of such an authority, their inhibitions remain natural and in place.

See we are looking at the entire authority aspect of military training totally differently. This is good, because this is really what I'm interested in discussing.

It appears you stance is (and correct me if I am wrong) that authority plays a crucial part in disabling the safeguard in military personnel, ergo, without the authority figure the safeguard cannot be disabled.

In contrast, my stance is that authority plays no part in disabling the safeguard, but plays a crucial part in controlling military personnel once the safeguard is removed. Therefore, a person exposed to conditioning without authority will have the safeguard disabled.

If the inclusion of an authority figure is necessary to overcoming such inhibitions -- which I believe is a valid proposition -- then video games would obviously not be subject to the same psychological process, since there is no authority figure involved.

I absolutely agree with your conditional conclusion here. This is very valid. The question, then, becomes "what role does authority have in disabling the safeguard in soldiers?".

Grossman cites authority as a method for overcoming the safeguard - and this applies equally to civilians as demonstrated by the Milgram Experiment. However soldiers shooting at targets are not killing anyone, and nor do they believe they are killing anyone. Authority figures are not required to induce a soldier to shoot at a target. Grossman contends it is specifically the physical act of repeatedly shooting human-shaped instant-feedback targets that disables the safeguard.

In this application, a FPS computer game could potentially be more effective, due to higher rates of repetition and greater realism (instead of a human shaped board that drops out of view, you shoot at a recognisable human avatar that "dies" when hit). Conversely, you could argue a computer game is less effective because the interface separates the shooter from the act.

Alternatively, you could argue that shooting at human-shaped instant-feedback targets does not disable the safeguard, but merely lowers the threshold at which a soldier will respond to an authority figure's demands. In this case, a computer game, likewise, would lower the threshold at which a person will respond to an authority figure's demands.

-Gumboot

 

[Wolfman]

lol -- it appears, gumboot, that you and I are both operating one post behind each other...so I'll wait for your response to my last post before I respond further to yours, so we can both be talking about the same things!

 

[gumboot]

Gumboot,

My question is simple, and I would consider it crucial to an examination of such a correlation. It is whether the training programs used by the U.S. military are, in and of themselves, responsible for decreasing 'natural' inhibitions to kill? Or if it is also necessary to have a strong authority structure in place? That is, "natural" inhibitions are replaced, in special situations (ie. in combat) with an alternate set of inhibitions that are based on what those in authority tell you to do?

The impression I get from the book is that disabling the safeguard is solely a result of the methods used to train soldiers to shoot, and that the authority structure does not in any way contribute to the disabling process.

Your question is very valid though, and it's the sort of "counter discussion" that I think the concept could benefit from. I aren't qualified to answer for Grossman, and nor would I want to, at best I can speculate on how my understanding of his book applies.

Such questioning can only either strengthen the theory, or identify crucial flaws and lead to an amended more robust theory (or even abandonment of the theory if the flaws are serious enough). Either way, it's a win.

At the end of this post, once I've finished my response, I'll attempt to address the specific question of authority's role in disabling the safeguard, and why I get the impression it doesn't have an important role.

If the former situation is true, then I'd consider you have valid grounds for correlation between military training and video games. But if the latter is true, then there would be no such correlation.

To play the role of Devil's Advocate, I'd argue that a combination of factors are necessary to overcome our 'natural' inhibitions. That would be 1) to be desensitized, to be in an environment where natural inhibitions are decreased through deliberate activities, and 2) to have an authority structure that replaces those inhibitions with a new set of 'rules' or 'standards'.

I see where you're going. My only real question is why you think it's necessary to replace natural inhibitions with a new set of "rules".

If you have the first situation but not the second, it will result in people who react with much less horror/disgust/condemnation of such actions, but whose own inhibitions against personally committing such acts remains the same; if you have the latter, you'll have a situation much like that in your OP, describing WW II soldiers, where they will attack when forced to, but will still have strong natural inhibitions against such actions.

Only when the two factors are combined are you able to effectively overcome those natural inhibitions.

I'll address this further on, but the book does seem to suggest otherwise. In brief, the resistance to killing is presented as related but separate to our reactions when others attempt to kill us, or we are exposed to others trying to kill a third party. The book also distinguishes between overcoming the resistance to killing in a specific circumstance, and permanently removing the resistance altogether.

Or, to take your own thesis and run with it, an effective means of determining this would be simply to study new U.S. military recruits, before and after being subjected to training. Divide them into groups who have actively played first-person shooter games, and those who have not. Then see if the former group has fewer inhibitions (or loses their inhibitions more quickly) than the latter group. If you could demonstrate that those who have played such games frequently have already had some of their inhibitions decreased, and thus require less desensitizing when they are trained in the military, you'd have a strong foundation for your hypothesis. If, on the other hand, there were no appreciable difference between the two groups, then it would be a pretty solid indication that your hypothesis is wrong, or incomplete.

The problem here is we're specifically talking about an inhibition against killing another human. You can't really test it except by having the test subjects kill people. This is somewhat problematic.


Now, if you'll bear with my I just want to address what I perceive as the book's take on authority.

The first thing is there's a key distinction between temporarily overcoming the resistance, and actually disabling it so it no longer exists.

The premise is that various circumstances can temporarily overcome the inhibition, but these are not trustworthy, they are not easily controllable, they are not efficient, and they result in severe trauma, thus rendering soldiers useless.

Conditioning, on the other hand, completely removes the inhibition all together. There is no need to attempt to overcome the inhibition or manufacture specific circumstances (obviously impossible in warfare), and the psychological repercussions are delayed - potentially by years, thus ensuring soldiers maintain a high level of effectiveness. If the soldiers in question are treated properly the psychological repercussions may never manifest themselves.

Soldiers in World War Two, like all soldiers before them, had not been conditioned to kill. Brigadier General S.L.A Marshall was the official US Army Historian for the Pacific Theatre in WW2, and later became the official historian for the European Theatre. In his research (from which he produced the controversial book Men Against Fire), he found consistently that only 15 - 20% of infantry soldiers would fire their weapons at the enemy in an engagement. The rest did not flee or hide or panic - indeed they often undertook other much more dangerous tasks such as rescuing wounded or running messages. They simply would not fire.

Officers and NCO's could produce slightly better rates of fire but only when in very close proximity to soldiers - sometimes touching. As soon as they moved along the line to other soldiers, the troops they had just got firing would stop.

This is supported by the findings of the Milgram Experiment. Most people, when confronted with an authority figure in close proximity, would kill. Once the authority was removed from immediate proximity, most people would not kill.

Marshall's findings also indicate that all combatants refused to fire, not just Americans. Had Japanese and German soldiers all been firing, the rate of fire produced by the enemy would have been five or six times what a comparable number of American soldiers could produce. History quite clearly demonstrates that is not the case.

These conclusions are supported by a range of data produced since then, including American Civil War studies, Medieval Warfare studies, and the historic records we have of Ancient battles.

In 1986 the British conducted a thorough analysis of over 100 historic 19th and 20th Century battles, including pulsed laser weapon recreations, to assess whether Marshall's findings were evident in previous battles. By comparing the test trials with historic casualty information they found that Marshall's observations were true of historic battles as well.

The information provided by F.A. Lord (author of the Civil War Collector's Encyclopedia) on muskets recovered from Gettysburg after the battle again indicates the same thing.

After Marshall's findings, a comprehensive effort was made to improve shooting rates. Marshall concluded that a natural resistance to killing fellow humans existed, and that weapon drill and discipline obviously weren't enough to permanently overcome it. Thus, it had to be disabled.

Of course the most obvious methodology for training soldiers to kill is simply to make them actually kill. This is problematic for two key reasons - the first obviously being that it's not practical or acceptable to train our soldiers by having them kill things.

The second is that, although authority can temporarily overcome the resistance, and thus repeated instances of authority forcing a soldier to kill will over time disable the safeguard, each act of killing will result in severe psychological trauma - with the rate of trauma gradually decreasing as the act is repeated.

However, we do see this less "civilised" form of conditioning throughout history and in other societies. Gangs, terrorist groups, and other unsavoury armed factions routinely employ a conditioning technique where new recruits to the cause are forced to kill animals or even people. In some South American gangs new recruits are given a puppy to look after, and after a period of time they are physically made to shoot it.

Historically, the fighters were also the hunters, thus over the seasons their repeated successful kills in the hunt gradually overcame their resistance to killing.

Obviously these methods were not an option for the US Army after World War Two, but they did develop a solution.

The new training methodology was very simple:

1. Human-shaped targets
2. Human-like behaviour from targets (appearing and disappearing suddenly)
3. Instant reward - a successful kill results in the target lying down
4. High rates of repetition

By the Vietnam War, a study similar to Marshall's found that 95% of combatants would fire at the enemy. The training had worked.

The role of authority in weapon drill does not appear to have significantly changed, nor the basic nature of authority in the military as a whole.

This would suggest to me, that authority does not play a significant role in the disabling process.

What appears to be happening is the mind is being tricked. Essentially the soldier is repeatedly carrying out the act of killing another human, without actually killing another human.

This is where the parallel to computer games lies. A FPS computer game contains all of the four key elements listed above. A computer game player, just like a soldier on a shooting range, has no problem with shooting the targets because they know they are not people. The resistance is not in place. But in shooting the target both the gamer and the soldier are simulating the act of killing.

-Gumboot

 

[Bikewer]

I still have my doubts about all this.
In the history of warfare, I don't think we can characterize our ancestor's battles as "brief encounters with one side breaking and running". Not that that didn't happen, of course, but we can look at battles (just to name a couple) between Samurai wherin the carnage extended to hundreds of thousands killed. And this was very intimate warfare indeed, "up close and personal". Of course, it might be said that the philosophy of Bushido glorified such activities....

Likewise during the American Civil War, individual battles resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Again, a particularly up-close form of warfare, with muzzle-loading rifles and bayonets the primary infantry weapon.
As I recall, Civil War conscripts had very little in the way of training....

One could go on and on in this vein, but I would still assert that the triggering mechanism that allows human beings to participate in any form of violence is pretty much a delicate thing.
As a police officer, I often see the results of domestic violence. In most cases, simple assaults; but all too often, homicide inflicted in an enraged state precipitated by the most mundane reasons. This sort of thing has gone on throughout history as well, and more than a few cultures have viewed such homicides as being less serious than "cold-blooded" murder.
So we have not only a predilection to this violence, but one that is widely-enough recognized by societies, and culturally integrated.

Through history, we've had "warrior cultures", with warrior castes, military culture, and so forth. One might argue in support of Grossman's ideas that such closed castes and cultures were necessary to provide the impetus to killing, or one might simply think that cultures throughout history have simply tapped into a essential portion of human nature, the predilection towards violence.

 

[R.Mackey]

The new training methodology was very simple:

1. Human-shaped targets
2. Human-like behaviour from targets (appearing and disappearing suddenly)
3. Instant reward - a successful kill results in the target lying down
4. High rates of repetition

...

This is where the parallel to computer games lies. A FPS computer game contains all of the four key elements listed above. A computer game player, just like a soldier on a shooting range, has no problem with shooting the targets because they know they are not people. The resistance is not in place. But in shooting the target both the gamer and the soldier are simulating the act of killing.

-Gumboot

Hi Gumboot, I always enjoy your posts. Not sure I buy this argument, though... A few things to consider:

1. If the act of actually shooting someone runs up against psychological safeguards, then it stands to reason that any useful simulant would also run up against them, if perhaps more gently. Many people blanch at the prospect of handling an actual firearm, even if unloaded and with no intention of firing it. But nobody that I am aware of has such feelings about FPS games -- disinterest or distaste, perhaps, but not the same thing at all.

2. Why single out FPS games alone? Why are regular cops 'n robbers games not equally satisfying to your four conditions above?

As a personal example, see avatar at left, I am highly involved in the sport of paintball. By your criteria above, it would seem to be an ideal example of such a simulation as you describe, but it is not. There is no evidence linking paintball to homicide. Despite what many think, it is terrible training for would-be militants or actual soldiers. And, like my first point above, I've never run across anyone who had an innate aversion to the markers or even to shooting other people, even those who will run from the mere sight of an actual firearm. First-time players will mark others with total abandon, and their only fear is one of being hit themselves, not vice-versa.

So, what do you think?

 

[JQH]

Inclined to agree with the point re paint-balling - it's a game and players don't like to be hit because it's going to put them out of the game. I've never seen anyone shot for eal but I rasther doubt that their reactions are going to be anything like those of someone splatted with paintballs.

With regards to FPS computer games, the CGI imagery in them is nothing like reality so I rather doubt that these are going to condition anyone to kill either.

 

[gumboot]

I still have my doubts about all this.
In the history of warfare, I don't think we can characterize our ancestor's battles as "brief encounters with one side breaking and running". Not that that didn't happen, of course, but we can look at battles (just to name a couple) between Samurai wherin the carnage extended to hundreds of thousands killed. And this was very intimate warfare indeed, "up close and personal". Of course, it might be said that the philosophy of Bushido glorified such activities....

I think, at least as far as I know, the overwhelming evidence suggests that our glorified versions of ancient warfare are totally wrong.

The vast majority of combat deaths would fall into the category of atrocity - slaughtering of prisoners etc. A fundamental aspect of early warfare is denying the humanity of your enemy.

Likewise during the American Civil War, individual battles resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Again, a particularly up-close form of warfare, with muzzle-loading rifles and bayonets the primary infantry weapon.
As I recall, Civil War conscripts had very little in the way of training....

Well, the book's take on the American Civil War is very different. To begin, the majority of battle deaths on a black powder battlefield were from cannon fire, not musket fire or sword wounds.

Secondly, Civil War recruits, like all Napoleonic War recruits before them, were endlessly drilled in firing procedure. Even within a few weeks the loading and firing of a musket could be performed almost without thinking.

The muskets of the Civil War were superior to earlier Napoleonic War muskets, as was the powder and charge.

In training, infantry regiments consistently had high rates of success shooting at targets - rates that should guarantee at short range 120 or more enemy soldiers should be killed with every volley.

Yet throughout both the Napoleonic Wars and the American Civil War, this didn't happen. In fact, even in engagements with a separation as little as thirty or fifteen yards, a typical death rate was one or two soldiers a minute. A typical musket infantryman could fire between one and five rounds a minute, depending on the type of musket and their training. At such short ranges, they should be killing upwards of 500 enemy soldiers each minute.

There are countless examples of units of men firing at each other for hour upon hour upon hour, literally a stones throw apart. These engagements, more often than not, were stopped through exhaustion, or nightfall, or cannon fire. Not through one side killing another.

On a black powder battlefield a loaded musket is a highly valuable thing, as is shot. Soldiers of the Civil War were typically issued 40 shots, and after that many rounds were fired the musket would usually be so fouled up it would be unusable. Yet there are numerous well documented cases of individual soldiers firing hundreds - up to 400 - shots in a battle. They cannot have done this unless they got the additional shot and weapons from their fellow soldiers.

Even more telling, 90% of all muskets recovered from Gettysburg were loaded. Half of these were loaded more than once and 25% of all loaded muskets were loaded three times or more. One musket was loaded twenty three times!

The only logical explanation for this is large numbers of soldiers were remaining in formation, going through the entire loading drill, and when it came time to fire, did not pull the trigger. Then they continued on, perfectly performing the loading drill again. And again failing to fire. And again reloading.

One could go on and on in this vein, but I would still assert that the triggering mechanism that allows human beings to participate in any form of violence is pretty much a delicate thing.

We're not talking about the triggering mechanism that allows human beings to participate in violence. We're talking about the triggering mechanism that stops them killing other people.

As a police officer, I often see the results of domestic violence. In most cases, simple assaults; but all too often, homicide inflicted in an enraged state precipitated by the most mundane reasons. This sort of thing has gone on throughout history as well, and more than a few cultures have viewed such homicides as being less serious than "cold-blooded" murder.
So we have not only a predilection to this violence, but one that is widely-enough recognized by societies, and culturally integrated.

I'm glad you brought up the law enforcement and domestic homicide thing. The "non-firing" phenomenon is not only found in the military. In the 1950's the FBI conducted a study of law enforcement officers and found the same lack of willingness to fire in situations where it was warranted, and even necessary. As a result of these findings the FBI employed new conditioning techniques like used by the military. As a result the fire rates amongst FBI agents rose considerably through the 1960's.

The actual "anatomy of killing" is fairly complex, and Grossman goes into it in detail. A number of factors affect the killer's ability to overcome the resistance to killing.

One of these is an extreme emotional state. This is the homicide committed in an enraged state, for mundane reasons, that you mentioned. It's by far the most common sort of murder. Usually the killer and victim are very closely related. And what crime statistics tell us is that a very significant percentage of killers will then kill themselves, or attempt to do so. An extensive study in California found that 40% of perpetrators of domestic homicide committed suicide after the act. This doesn't account for those that wanted to but didn't, or tried to and failed.

The emotional state briefly allows the killer to overcome their resistance to killing, but it does so at an enormous psychological cost. Immediately after the act the killer feels the repercussions of guilt and self loathing.

Through history, we've had "warrior cultures", with warrior castes, military culture, and so forth. One might argue in support of Grossman's ideas that such closed castes and cultures were necessary to provide the impetus to killing, or one might simply think that cultures throughout history have simply tapped into a essential portion of human nature, the predilection towards violence.

Just to be clear we're making a distinction here between intentionally killing and violence. Violence is a form of posturing - trying to force the other person to submit to your dominance. The fight-or-flight behaviour that causes killing is altogether different.

This is actually one area that Grossman doesn't cover - the cult of the warrior - and I think it is important. The examples of WW2 and Vietnam demonstrate clearly how a society's acceptance or rejection of their war veterans has huge ramifications for their psychological well being. WW2 veterans were universally treated as heroes. They were given parades, hugged by strangers, and welcomed home with open arms. This vindicates their acts in war, and assures them what they did was right and just.

In contrast, Vietnam War veterans were treated appallingly. They were called baby killers and murderers, they were spat on, they were denied recognition, they were denied parades. They were used as political pawns. This has a devastating effect on the mental well being of a soldier who is struggling to come to terms with the fact that he has killed. There is a reason rates of psychological trauma in Vietnam veterans are so high.

This, to me, reinforces the idea that the "cult of the warrior" has a powerful role in protecting soldiers from the psychological repercussions of killing. I don't think it's coincidence that throughout history the superior military powers have held soldiers in special regard.

Having said this, there is also undeniable evidence that these ancient cultures had to deal with this resistance to killing. In his anatomy of killing, Grossman explains that the nature of the method of killing plays a big role. At one extreme end, a weapon operator pushes a button and launches a missile at a grid reference on a map. There is no psychological trauma because the operator can rationalise their actions and deny personally killing anyone. Both technology and distance remove the killer from the victim.

At the other extreme end is killing someone by driving a knife point first into their body. The killer has personally delivered the killing blow with a weapon that acts as an extension of their own body - it is as if they themselves have physically penetrated their victim's body. They cannot deny that they personally killed this person. They are exposed to the victim's full horror and suffering. This is the most traumatic form of killing there is.

The Roman gladius was a weapon designed for stabbing. Romans quickly learned that a stab wound - although only penetrating a few inches - was almost always fatal. This contrasted with a slashing or cutting blow, which often failed to disable the enemy.

The Romans, therefore, trained their soldiers to stab. Yet they record enormous trouble trying to get their soldiers to stab instead of slash. It was so much of a problem that the Romans had to develop an entire culture within the military that ridiculed and mocked the use of the edge of a blade. The act of penetrating an enemy's body with a weapon has the same intense intimacy as the sexual act, and the Romans used this. In fact they referred to warfare as f***ing. Those that slashed were not men. They were women.

Interestingly enough, the Romans also found that universally their enemies slashed instead of stabbing. This played an important role in Roman supremacy. This was in part because the Roman method was more efficient at killing, but also because seeing their enemies slashing reinforced the Roman belief that their methods were superior, thus giving them a psychological advantage. At the same time, the enemy - horrified at the thought of Romans plunging blades into their bodies - would break down in terror.

-Gumboot