BOOK REVIEW: On Killing: LTC Dave Grossman

[scout1067]

.

For me the purpose of dialog is to learn. Whether I agree or not, I'm always trying to learn something about the premises upon which my conclusions are based. On occasion someone has brought something to my attention that has resonated with me and caused me to reevaluate my premises and draw different conclusions.

I am familiar with the references you provided. Google is my friend. 

Ad hominem attacks as argument have little effect on my thinking, whomever the source.

This, unfortunately for me, is so far over the top for the mistakes he made, I am now having difficulty taking much of what you say as an opportunity for me to learn anything.

I get that you disagree with me.  I say again, I call BS on most of what is presented in On Killing based solely on my own experience.  I particularly find his number of 98% not firing in combat suspicious.  He would have us believe that almost 100% of small-arms inflicted wounds in combat are inflicted by the 2% who are willing to fight and might I add, apparently also insane.  I am incredulous that more people have not questioned this line of reasoning, it is counter-intuitive to say the least.  His use of the suspect data from Marshall only increases my personal doubt in the validity of his conclusions.  As I state in my review, most of what he says in the book seems to be based on a preconcieved notion that killing is difficult.  I point out that history says otherwise.  If anything, increased physical distance should make it easier to kill, not harder.  Some of the bloodiest battles in history were fought with swords when you actually had to look a man in the eye as you killed him.

I also simply pointed out the absurdity of basing your belief in veracity by the books inclusion on a service reading list.  I did not launch an ad hominem attack on you, I simply pointed out the lack of academic rigor in the selection of books for inclusion in the service reading lists.  It seems to me that the difficulties of Ambrose are indeed germane by highlighting a lack of academic rigor.  If you choose to take my rebuttal personally that is your problem, not mine.  I have tried to avoid a personal attack as I find them useless when trying to debate a subject.  I would assume though that I could be excused for vigorously defending my position.  I am still waiting for you to show me something that proves him right other than your belief in his veracity.  I have personal experience of combat in a cavalry unit, that is what I base my belief on.  What about you?

[scout1067]

On Killing: LTC Dave Grossman
I should preface my analysis by claiming that I am not a big believer in Psychiatric or Psychological theory.

Pretty well cuts off any meaningful dialog, doesn't it? All that remains is the trading of opinions.

You should reference the whole passage and not just one sentence whose meaning is easily changed when taken out of context.  Here is my original:

I should preface my analysis by claiming that I am not a big believer in Psychiatric or Psychological theory.  It has been my experience that mental health professionals bring their own host of preconceived notions about the human condition to counseling and analysis that render their conclusions suspect in my eyes.  I find it hard to believe that somebody can tell me how I am feeling or thinking on the basis of a few hours of interviews.  This is not to say that I do not think mental health professionals are useful, I do, I just think their pronouncements and diagnoses need to be taken with a grain of salt.

  You should note that I explain the reasons for my lack of belief in Psychiatric or Psychological theory, you can feel perfectly free to debate the merits of my beliefs and I am willing to listen and may even change my position depending on the strength of your argument.

[HowardCohodas]

I did not launch an ad hominem attack on you,

Had I felt it was against me, I would not have mentioned it.

You should reference the whole passage and not just one sentence whose meaning is easily changed when taken out of context.

Context does not obviate my point. Once you eliminate the basis for a line of reasoning, whatever your explanation, you cut off dialog on that reasoning. All I am left with is dialog on your explanation.

I get that you disagree with me.

I don't think you do! I disagree with your approach to exposition, not necessarily your conclusions. I think you could have made many of your points, some of which I find worth while for me to investigate, without insulting the author or the science on which he chose to base his conclusions.

I have personal experience of combat in a cavalry unit, that is what I base my belief on.  What about you?

I am grateful beyond my ability to express in words for your service to our country. I was not so privileged. Even though I am somewhat long in the tooth, I have been exploring serving as a civilian in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, in my profession, a current security clearance is required and mine has long since expired.

[scout1067]

Had I felt it was against me, I would not have mentioned it.

I do not see how I launched an attack on LTC Grossman.  I pointed out what I felt were the flaws in his theory and explained why I felt so.  Is that not the point of a book review?  I am not honor bound to agree with the author nor am I honor bound to not express that disagreement in such a forum.  Perhaps I was a little too strong in my language but I still feel that I did not besmirch the name of LTC Grossman.  My opinion is my own and I made it perfectly clear where my personal opinions began and ended.  In what way did I engage in personal attacks so that I can avoid this in future reviews?

Context does not obviate my point. Once you eliminate the basis for a line of reasoning, whatever your explanation, you cut off dialog on that reasoning. All I am left with is dialog on your explanation.

Context does indeed obviate your point.  For when my words are put into context your point is lost.

I disagree with your approach to exposition, not necessarily your conclusions.

So you don't like my style.  I guess I will have to accept that, you are not the first and most probably will not be the last that doesn't like it.

[HowardCohodas]

We seem to have come to the point where I must resort to one of my favorite GBS quotes.

The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.

[HowardCohodas]

I just noticed the view count. I am surprised so few others have chimed in on this.

[scout1067]

I just noticed the view count. I am surprised so few others have chimed in on this.

I am not surprised, I think I nailed the problems with this work regardless of my tone.  You have yet to add anything substantive in refutation other than to point out that you disagree with my assessment, think I am attacking Grossman personally, and because the Marines like him so do you.  I think that pretty much sums up the gist of your posts thus far.

[Stumpfoot]

With all due respect, not much about the book has been debated, just how it should be debated. I think thats why no one has put in there two cents.

[DonaldBaker]

I have no knowledge in this topic area so I bow to those with more knowledge.  But as a Global Moderator here, I am watching the value of the arguments expressed to ensure they do not deteriorate into a less than academic conversation....if you get my meaning.

[HowardCohodas]

I have no knowledge in this topic area so I bow to those with more knowledge.  But as a Global Moderator here, I am watching the value of the arguments expressed to ensure they do not deteriorate into a less than academic conversation....if you get my meaning.

You appear to be in good company regarding domain knowledge.

Thank you for your service as a moderator. I've been offered that position many times and was only tempted once. It is, in my view, mostly a thankless responsibility and I admire anyone willing to take it on with integrity.

[DonaldBaker]

I value this forum more than my own websites.  It is my honor to serve as a moderator here.  Eventually this forum will be one of the best history discussion forums on the web.  But these things take time.  Stay for the ride and you won't regret it.

[scout1067]

We seem to have come to the point where I must resort to one of my favorite GBS quotes.

The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.

We do seem to have reached a dead end.  I propose that the only thing left is for us to agree to disagree.