Teaching soldiers and kids to shoot people

Great Debates
1

According to this web site, this page, Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall discovered during WWII post-combat interviews that only 15 to 20 percent of soldiers fired their weapons at an exposed enemy soldier. This was apparently born out through further research, and discovered to hold true for law enforcement officers faced with an armed criminal firing at them as well.

According to the same site, this is due to a resistance to killing each other that’s just part of human nature.

This resistance is overcome in soldiers through training. Changing the training targets from bull’s-eyes to realistic man shaped pop-up targets. This was further enhanced with the video game age, using more realistic simulations. Basic operant conditioning, stimulus, bad guy appears, response, shoot them. Apparently this brought the percentage up to the 55% range for Korea, and up to the 95% range for American troops in Vietnam.

The author is then taking the step to say that we are performing the same operant conditioning on our children, without the controls. The way I’m reading this is that first person shooters quake, doom, etc. provide the same operant conditioning that the military training does, without the discipline of the remainder of military training. So children, who might otherwise be resistant to taking daddy’s gun to school and shooting their tormentors, are less resistant to do so.

The author’s not saying this will cause every child to do so. I heard him on a morning radio show segment and he explained it more as a controllable risk factor. He appears to be trying to educate, and one of the goals he is promoting is enforcing the voluntary rating system that game companies have instituted and encouraging anyone who owns a gun to make sure their children to not have free access to it.

Now I’ve seen gun control threads, and video game violence threads, but in my reading, I haven’t come across this particular spin on it.

Has anyone else seen this site, read any of the gentleman’s books, or heard counter arguments?

While I remain skeptical, reading through this material is very convincing.

-Doug

2

Percentage of what? For every 20 shots fird in Vietnam 19 of them killed an enemy? I don’t think so. Be careful. Misunderstood data is as bad as false data.

As for video game conditioning I still think it’s a stretch to say games are a direct cause of shootings. I’d accept that they may be an enabling factor for disturbed people who are incapable of empathy.

3

Padeye wrote:

No, percentage of troops that fired at an exposed enemy target at least once in their careers.

4

Thanks for the clarification tracer. That brings up other questions. The changes may have to do more with how troops were deployed rather than how they were trained.

5

Padeye,

If you check out the article I linked to, you might note that the same training methods had the same increasing effect on law enforcement officers.

This does not appear to be specific to deployment or position of soldier to enemy soldier.

Though i’m not sure if Tracer’s clarification is correct, my read of the article made it seem to be more of “In any given engagement, when faced with exposed enemy soldiers pointing guns at them x percent of our soldiers fired their weapon in the direction of said enemy soldier.”

The article also mentions that there was no where near the same percentage of hesitation/resistance for:

6

I read this man’s book and I felt the arguments were very convincing–it even restored my faith in human nature a little bit. The investigation into WWII soldier behavior was the strongest section, although he tries to show that it might be a common theme throughout history (guns found loaded multiple times from the Civil War but never fired, the phalanx working because it removed the soldier’s need to kill individually).

In the book, I think the video games section is a bit of a stretch and is much less convincing. I don’t think that there was much data to point to, and how could you possibly get that data?

But from what I like to call a “common sense” point of view, I think the idea has some merit. I think just pointing a gun at a person is a pretty violent act, something I couldn’t imagine doing. I’d like to think this is a universal reaction to putting somebody that close to death, but how can I be sure? It’s about the same as holding a knive to their neck or a rock over their head and those would seem to be universally stressful situations. How would pointing a gun at somebody make you all feel? Somebody you know or a stranger or even somebody that you hate? Not sure I could pull the trigger on anybody…Hitler, maybe? Henry Kissinger?

But war and a school shooting are pretty different. War is impersonal: you don’t know the enemy and he (that particular soldier in front of you) has probably never wronged you. Anger and hatred would seem to make things easier and school shooters have that in abundance.

So basically, I have no idea. But I would recommend the book–even if you fundamentally disagree, it’s a pretty interesting read.

7

In a platoon of 30 men, only 5 or 6 fired at the enemy when confronted in WWII? I think something is extremly wrong here. How the hell did the allies win? I don’t agree with that at all. Maybe 15-20% of all troops invovled in WWII fired their personel weapon at a known enemy individual.

I really doubt that 95% of the people in Vietnam actually saw a known enemy.

8

I don’t get it. How do you assault an enemy force without firing your weapon? What do you do if they’re still alive when you get to them? Touch them on the shoulder and say “Tag, you’re It”?

And what soldier fights without a leader present?

I can understand soldiers panicking and not moving. Hell, half the battle is getting the other guy to panic before you do. But having an enemy in your sights and not pulling the trigger? Doesn’t make sense.

9

That is definitely one part of it that makes me skeptical, though if the enemy soldiers are doing the same thing, then the 5 or 6 our of your 30 men that are firing just have to do a better job of it than the 5 or 6 of their 30 men that are firing I guess.

True, but is that leader too busy being one of the 5 or 6 firing, or are they personally yelling in the ear of each of those too scared to shoot and telling them to pull the damn trigger?

Which has what to do with the statment that the percentage is based on:

Which would therefore not include those who never saw an exposed enemy soldier in the numbers the percentage was based on.

Which is not to say you don’t have a point there, but even if you don’t go read the article I link to, could you give what a post a full read before arguing against a point i didn’t make?

-Doug

10

Damn, I gotta lay off Counter-Strike then…:wink:

What makes me wonder here is why would a kid who takes a gun to a school or wherever would be more likely to stop if he hasn’t played first-person shooters. He already has active intent to hurt and kill, no conditioned reactions gave him that.

However, in a war, a soldier is given a rifle and told to shoot at the guys coming at him. I would think the aim of the military conditioning is that the training at the firing ranges is similar enough to let the soldier react to the targets (who are real humans now) in the same way as he does at the firing range. Aim, fire, next target, aim, fire, etc.

Maybe it could be argued that computer games make it easier to keep shooting, but I doubt it, as playing FPS’s and firing actual guns aren’t that similar experiences.

11

I think it’s believable if you read it this way: “when faced with an exposed enemy, only 15% attempted an aimed shot intended to kill that enemy.” The rest most likely discharged their weapons, but they weren’t aimed shots but instead were “suppressing fire”.
It’s more believable when you consider that considerably more soldiers in WWII were killed/injured by shrapnel than by bullets. (If you want a cite for that, you’ll have a long wait. That is from a history book in college, long since sold.) This conforms to Marshall’s theory - artillery soldiers or bombers don’t see the people they kill.

Besides, you don’t have to kill all that many of your enemy to win a battle or a war - demoralize them, break up unit cohesion, or make their position untenable, and they will run away.

Sua

12

Jaakko

I think I agree with you there. As far as my understanding of operant conditioning goes, it doesn’t generalize all that far.

On the radio show I heard, the author of the article pointed out an old simualtion game “Duck Hunt” from Nintendo that the military actually bought the rights to and replaced the ducks with enemy soldiers and the pistol with an M16 mock up. This was one of his point linking video game to military operant conditioning.

Now a simulation where you’re actually holding a gun, and not sitting behind a keyboard seems to be a more realistic simulation, so I can see where the operant conditioning could apply. You’re basically building the reflex of “see enemy, point gun, pull trigger” into the process. This was one of his main points. He said this was why a lot of the school shooters, once they started firing, went into game mode and if it moved, shoot it.

As a hard core gammer, what, I’m gonna see an enemy soldier and beat on the closest space bar? (or whatever physical reaction becomes reflex after playing a particular game long enough.) I don’t think the operant conditioning from Quake, doom or Counter Strike crosses over until we get virtual robot soldiers and I am actually operating it from a keyboard and screen.

-Doug

13

If I’m any indication the typical reaction for us gamers is a lot of flailing with the mouse trying to get the crosshairs in the right place, closely followed by loud cursing and banging at the keyboard for getting fragged from such an obvious place…:smiley:

Those ‘light gun’ shooters might well do some conditioning, but then so would some forms of target shooting. How popular are those games these days anyway? Looks like to me everyone plays on the 'net with a PC today.
But anyway, be it true or not, it still doesn’t seem very relevant to stopping these shootings.

14

Well thank you Sun-Tzu for clearing that little bit up for me.

Everyone know arty kills more than the groundpounder will.
Even with suppresive fire you still need to clear the enemy out, you can’t just shoot in his general direction and hope he will run. With suppresive fire the enemy would be more likely to hunker down and not move at all. Someone still has to clear them out.

They were in a war, with friends dying around them. They ate, drank, smoked, joked, and bled with. I have serious doubts that they were thinking “oh, if I fire at them they will go away.” There is a pretty clear mind set of the enemy wants to hurt me and my buddies, therefore, I will drop him, before he drops me.

15

If this is one of his pieces of “evidence”, then I am already quite skeptical.

In the Civil War, they were using muzzle-loaders. In the heat of battle, if a soldier pulled the trigger and the gun misfired, he probably wouldn’t notice – there would be plenty of smoke and banging noises from all the other men around him firing. And since this would leave a bullet stuck in the barrel, every time he rammed a new powder charge and patch and bullet down the muzzle and then attemptd to fire it, the flash would never ignite the powder charge – the flash would be trapped behind that stuck bullet from the misfire.

In fact, this would completely contraindicate an unwillingness to kill enemy soldiers – it would indicate that the man had been so focused on trying to do so that he missed realizing that his gun had been disabled by a misfire.

16

I can’t recall where I read this, unfortunately, but I found it interesting.

US Army and Marine troops in WWII spent lots of time training on the Known Distance Range with their rifles, with the goal of becoming excellent marksmen. Staff studies during the war, however, observed that this translated into a reluctance to fire one’s weapon in combat in the absence of a specific enemy target.

This was regarded as a Bad Thing, and considerable effort was spent trying to “unteach” this habit. Suppression fire (rifle fire in the enemy’s general direction) had demonstrated value, and was encouraged even though it seemed so very un-range-like to just blaze away at a cluster of trees. “Even if you don’t see a specific human target, fire anyway at the enemy position. You may get lucky, and you’ll almost certainly help keep their heads down.”

I think this is the distinction that the OP is pointing at - sort of. I understood the study to be saying that relatively few troops found it in them to specifically aim at an enemy soldier, but instead simply aimed in the general direction of an enemy position and blazed away. Since this action was encouraged by the leadership, it seems somewhat believable.

17

Yes supression is a good thing, I can see how that could add to the only 15-20% actually shooting at human target.

But, to take supression fire, and turn it into someone saying " I won’t shoot the enemy cause it might hurt em" drek to support some theory that video games teach children to be combat troops is a pretty far stretch.

The Phalanx worked cause it made it harder to target an individual soldier, not because of some human compulsion not to kill.

18

Hmm…

When the soldiers shot at the ‘bad guy’ replacements in their copy of ‘Duck Hunt’ and missed, did a lower-ranking soldier pop up, pointing at them and snickering?

I’ve played FPS games for years now, and I am not addicted to them. No siree. Nuh uh.

One observation:

Those who belong to online gaming ‘clans’ display a propensity not necessarily for real-life violence, but for thinking about the game quite a bit more than the casual player.

Those who gain a sense of ‘kinship’ from their online ‘clan’ spend much more time than usual honing their abilities online, and are imbued with a sense of accomplishment when they rise from ‘newbie’ to a ‘seasoned veteran.’

It stands to reason they spend a good deal more time thinking about game strategy and/or technique.

I know from experience that online gamers can often talk for literally hours about their online exploits, rehashing tales of derring-do in much the way old salts will speak of their war days. Yeah, it’s kinda bizarre, but it happens nevertheless—just look at the various ‘gamer conventions’ that assemble players from all over the country to eat and sleep the game for 48-72 hours at a time.

I have had dreams about games that I’ve spent time playing that bled into real life scenarios (in the dream).

No need to describe the dream. I took a few days off from playing.

But I’m not a hormonally charged teen with huge issues.

(I’m a hormonally charged adult with huge issues, but at least now I know what most of them are.)

I suppose my point is that, while I do not blame video games for perpetuation of violence, I could make a pretty good argument as to the possibility of a ‘shooter’ game contributing to one’s deteriorating sense of ‘knowing where the lines are drawn.’

Y’know?

19

Kvallulf, I think you have the cart before the horse. Marshall wasn’t talking about video games back in 1946 - his goal was to make American soldiers more efficient. He had no political agenda as far as I can see.
Considering that the “shoot to kill” ratio went up in Korea and Vietnam after his operant conditioning suggestions were adopted by the U.S. Army, I think that it is fair to say that he was on to something. You can’t argue with results. Besides which, the Army believes Marshall, and I think they have more experience in this area than you or me. :smiley:

The author of the web page article is the one trying to extend this theory to video games. Whether he is right or wrong about that is irrelevant to whether Marshall was right or wrong.

Sua

20

Does anyone have a copy of what Marshall actually wrote, or do we rely on a website claiming video games promote violence and this "Swank and Marchand’s World War II study of US Army combatants on the beaches of Normandy found that after 60 days of continuous combat, 98% of the surviving soldiers had become psychiatric casualties. And the remaining 2% were identified as “aggressive psychopathic personalities.” Thus it is not too far from the mark to observe that there is something about continuous, inescapable combat which will drive 98% of all men insane, and the other 2% were crazy when they got there. " I don’t buy the 98% insanity rate one bit.

Then there is this B.S. "To truly understand the nature of this resistance of killing we must first recognize that most participants in close combat are literally “frightened out of their wits.” Once the bullets start flying, combatants stop thinking with the forebrain, which is the part of the brain which makes us human, and start thinking with the midbrain, or mammalian brain, which is the primitive part of the brain that is generally indistinguishable from that of an animal. " Bzzzt Wrong answer, you don’t think your dead.

The whole website is a promotion to buy the video tapes, and contract a seminar. I too would find the most supportive information, no matter how it didn’t actually have to do with my product.