Search Results
7/4/2025, 5:44:32 PM
>>63937086
>>63937138
While this is an easy to understand explanation, it does not hold the light of examination.
While it was indeed considered back in the day that in-formation marching is something you train to improve in-group cohesion, more modern military-sociological research has shown that this is not the case.
Militaries have thrown a SHIT-TON of money into studies trying to figure out what exactly creates in-group cohesion, "espirit de corps" and "team spirit". How to turn a bunch of disorganized civvies into well-cooperating fighting machine.
And the most recent take is that ...a lot of the stuff that was done in the late 1800's and early 1900's (and hell, even late 1900's) to do that ...doesn't really work.
There are things that we can show to impact in-group cohesion, and this kind of in-line marching and old-fashioned "we must break the character of a person to re-mold them into soldiers" ...just doesn't work.
Things that DO work are stuff like "experiences of hardship shared with mates, especially if we then overcoming those hardships. Shared feelings of success, feelings of belonging, being one of the team" etc. Bullshit "you must goose-step in formation in order to be a proper soldier just does not positively create that.
source: Did my master's thesis on military manuals of early 1900's and their methods on cohesion building in comparison to modern military-sociological studies and what they consider to actually improve in-group cohesion.
"Beatings continue until morale improves" is conter-productive. You essentially turn the drill instructor into an enemy of the trainees... something to be overcome, rather than something to look inspiration from. If any "espirit de corps" is formed, it's formed despite the abusive training regime, not because of it.
"The ministery of Silly Walks" is indeed a relic of a bygone era, which some militaries still maintain due to sheer inertia of large organizations being slow to change their ways.
>>63937138
While this is an easy to understand explanation, it does not hold the light of examination.
While it was indeed considered back in the day that in-formation marching is something you train to improve in-group cohesion, more modern military-sociological research has shown that this is not the case.
Militaries have thrown a SHIT-TON of money into studies trying to figure out what exactly creates in-group cohesion, "espirit de corps" and "team spirit". How to turn a bunch of disorganized civvies into well-cooperating fighting machine.
And the most recent take is that ...a lot of the stuff that was done in the late 1800's and early 1900's (and hell, even late 1900's) to do that ...doesn't really work.
There are things that we can show to impact in-group cohesion, and this kind of in-line marching and old-fashioned "we must break the character of a person to re-mold them into soldiers" ...just doesn't work.
Things that DO work are stuff like "experiences of hardship shared with mates, especially if we then overcoming those hardships. Shared feelings of success, feelings of belonging, being one of the team" etc. Bullshit "you must goose-step in formation in order to be a proper soldier just does not positively create that.
source: Did my master's thesis on military manuals of early 1900's and their methods on cohesion building in comparison to modern military-sociological studies and what they consider to actually improve in-group cohesion.
"Beatings continue until morale improves" is conter-productive. You essentially turn the drill instructor into an enemy of the trainees... something to be overcome, rather than something to look inspiration from. If any "espirit de corps" is formed, it's formed despite the abusive training regime, not because of it.
"The ministery of Silly Walks" is indeed a relic of a bygone era, which some militaries still maintain due to sheer inertia of large organizations being slow to change their ways.
Page 1