Natural Killers

Scimitar · 12-08-2008, 16:19

Very interesting article; I'm sure that most QPs are already inherently aware of this; would be interesting to see a study of USASF averages and the rest of the Army averages.

Interested on any thoughts from QPs

Scimitar

http://www.rhoyos.com/files/natural_killers.pdf

**The Reaper** · 12-08-2008, 16:30

Sounds a lot like a Grossman piece.

TR

SFOC0173 · 12-22-2014, 18:08

Not sure if this is the same article, was unable to link to the article in the original post. This article was written by a Major David S. Pierson, US Army. He referenced Grossman five times in the footnotes.

https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg....1?OpenDocument

miclo18d · 12-22-2014, 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFOC0173

Not sure if this is the same article, was unable to link to the article in the original post. This article was written by a Major David S. Pierson, US Army. He referenced Grossman five times in the footnotes.

https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg....1?OpenDocument

From the article:

Quote:

the natural killer found in the US Army lacks social emotions, is a later son (not first-born), got into frequent fights as a child, enjoys contact sports, is from a middle or upper class background, is an extrovert, has above-average intelligence and a caustic sense of humor

I can react emotionally in social situations, never got into fights, wasn't really into contact sports (but didn't shy away from contact), and very much an introvert.

I was second born, middle class family, my sense of humor would be described as sarcaustic.

Above average intelligence is debatable.

Talked to an SF head shrinker and he said they looked for the "sociopath with morals". Someone who can kill (BAD guys), then have a beer and a laugh.

JJ_BPK · 12-23-2014, 01:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by miclo18d

Talked to an SF head shrinker and he said they looked for the "sociopath with morals". Someone who can kill (BAD guys), then have a beer and a laugh.

I only hit 4 of seven traits, I like beer and sarcastic laughing..

Sociopath w/morals,, Interesting tag line..

Streck-Fu · 12-23-2014, 05:49

Quote:

..... lacks social emotions.....

I can't access the link (may be work filter) but what the hell is this supposed to mean?

And Sociopath with morals?

I am not sure I would label a person capable of and willing to kill someone that wants to kill him as a 'Sociopath' anything.....

miclo18d · 12-23-2014, 06:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

I can't access the link (may be work filter) but what the hell is this supposed to mean?

And Sociopath with morals?

I am not sure I would label a person capable of and willing to kill someone that wants to kill him as a 'Sociopath' anything.....

"Sociopath with morals" see the quotations. That is a way to describe a person that can kill bad person and not be affected by the killing. Most sociopaths view killing as a means to their desires. They see no moral substance to it. A means to an end.

A drug dealer would be a good example. They have enacted they're own code and someone that deals in their territory can be killed. They don't think twice about it and are very proud of their "wins" record.

Yes, we do what we have to, but why a lower incidence of PTSD among SF? Because we did what we think is right to complete the mission or save our comrades, or ourselves, or our indigs. But we don't go around killing anyone we want for any reason we perceive. And we don't give a rats ass about filling body bags with undesirables as long as we have Freed the Oppressed!

"Sociopath....with morals"

Streck-Fu · 12-23-2014, 07:01

Quote:

But we don't go around killing anyone we want for any reason we perceive.

Which is why it seems "Sociopath with morals" is a conceptual oxymoron. I'm no shrink but the definition of Sociopath includes a lack of moral responsibility. Therefore, qualifying Sociopath to add morals negates the very trait that defines the condition.

Is there not a better term for people that can rationalize killing when necessary according to a set of ethical standards that benefit a society?

1stindoor · 12-23-2014, 07:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

...Is there not a better term for people that can rationalize killing when necessary according to a set of ethical standards that benefit a society?

Killin' those that needed killin'

Streck-Fu · 12-23-2014, 07:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1stindoor

Killin' those that needed killin'

I'm good with it....

JJ_BPK · 12-23-2014, 08:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

Is there not a better term for people that can rationalize killing when necessary according to a set of ethical standards that benefit a society?

The benefit to society is not the word smithing of phrases,
it is the deed that society refuses to acknowledge that the need exist
and for strong people to do what society will not..

atticus finch · 12-23-2014, 10:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

Which is why it seems "Sociopath with morals" is a conceptual oxymoron. I'm no shrink but the definition of Sociopath includes a lack of moral responsibility. Therefore, qualifying Sociopath to add morals negates the very trait that defines the condition.

Is there not a better term for people that can rationalize killing when necessary according to a set of ethical standards that benefit a society?

As it applies to the discussion here yes, it'd be called a soldier, serving in the military.
I remember my own time in the military and I used to hear some of the conversations about combat & killing. People talking along the same lines and the same issues of it.
It never bothered me, it is the job of the military to do such things & back in my day I knew who the bad guys were, what they stood for relative to what I stood for, and it was simple. Them or us.
Perhaps in laymens terms it would be 'cold-blooded' as opposed to being 'mean'. Sociopaths are mean in that they genuinely do derive pleasure from thier wrongful behavior and have no moral restriction on thier behavior. Cold-blooded people don't, they do what they know has to be done with no emotional attachment, with the moral restriction being only when they know it's the right thing to do.

JJDT · 12-23-2014, 10:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

Is there not a better term for people that can rationalize killing when necessary according to a set of ethical standards that benefit a society?

'Warrior'.

These studies are interesting and it's a worthy thing to study the mindset of those who kill as part of their job and lifestyle; but in the end they are classifying and studying what we have always known as the 'warrior class'; a class we as men trying our best to be part of it's legacy have idealized, admired, honored, and tried our best to carry on the traditions of.

A warrior doesn't need a psychiatrist to explain why we fight, kill, cheerfully celebrate our (violent) victories and darkly lament our equally violent defeats and losses. A psychiatrist on the other hand needs a plethora of research, statistics, variables, etc. to even come close to fathoming a tiny amount of the mind of a warrior.

That's were these studies come in, it's impossible to completely explain if you are part of it and it's impossible to understand if you are not part of it.

DISCLAIMER: I am obviously not a QP but though we might be vastly different in many ways, we also share common bonds. This is something I would imagine is common amongst all those who go to war with the express duty to fight.

Barbarian · 12-23-2014, 11:20

Killing is a natural part of life on Earth. Kill to eat, kill to protect, kill to live. Those who cannot do so are simply less capable than those who can.

NurseTim · 12-23-2014, 11:41

If I may ask a question.

Has there been an instance when someone has qualified, but when the time came, they could not pull the trigger, not due to fear, due to conscience? Or does selection weed them out so effectively that it has never come up?