How war has influenced ancient, classical and medieval societies

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm fine with being alphas and im fine being around betas. But one thing I can't stand are those omegas.

[Ironside]

I don't really buy into the whole alpha/beta male thing. It has some truth but the way it categorizes people is misleading. Really it is just about being strong-willed, and some of the most strong-willed people I've met are women and children, and often for reasons that do not fit in with the wider alpha male notion (eg if they show autistic-like behaviours, or they are introverted and just like doing their own thing, etc).

I used alpha as a shorthand for people that has a "my way or the highway" attitude, aka people with high dominance scores. Myth is covering them fairly well. That doesn't mean that they don't respect authority (some don't but that's a another trait), authority is one way to keep them in line. What it means is that they want things their way and will insist on keeping it that way. Ask them for 5 minutes of their time for a question and you might be granted it a day later, while the rest takes the question now as the default. You can work with them well, but a lot of it is working around them and adapting to their terms. In a conflict they'll mostly pick battle. That also means that many of them crash and burn because they picked the wrong battle.

A Soviet defence minister whose name I've forgotten (Sokolov?) was insistent on taking war to its utmost extent if it were to be started at all. It wasn't due to wanting to crush the enemy, as he was under no illusions over the costs involved when the other side did their thing. It was to discourage his civilian superiors from wanting to resort to war over minor things (IIRC Brezhnev might have been head at the time), to impress on them that the enemy would want to do their thing too, and the costs on both sides would be excessive.

Clever stance.

Karl X of Sweden is a prime example of a war junkie. He basically found his calling after his first battle, first time of being truely alive, from being a bit reluctant towards war before that. Did I mention that he started quite a bit of wars?

[Kadagar_AV]

I'll give you a hint. 2 alpha males functionally working together is luck, 3 is a miracle, 4 is literal proof of divine intervation. What you describe is perfectly normal for a cooperating group. Most has to be ok with submitting most of the time. The currently popular confidence boosting is causing fragile boasters, that can't handle problems well.

Imagine then my platoon in the military officer training program... 50 alphas being tossed in together under extremely though circumstances.

It took some weeks to solve the pecking order, but we did!!

Not that the pecking order was linear, it all depended on the task. Everyone around me shut up and listened when we were skiing, as an example, because they knew I had experience and knowledge they did not. Still though, the one highest in the pecking order ALLOWED me to step forwards there and then.

I don't really buy into the whole alpha/beta male thing. It has some truth but the way it categorizes people is misleading. Really it is just about being strong-willed, and some of the most strong-willed people I've met are women and children, and often for reasons that do not fit in with the wider alpha male notion (eg if they show autistic-like behaviours, or they are introverted and just like doing their own thing, etc).

I don't find alpha/beta/omega thinking misleading at all. In fact, it has helped tremendously in my life to have that perspective. Being strong willed and autistic makes you strong willed and autistic. No more no less.

Getting the people around you to bend to your will, has however nothing to do with stubbornest or autism. They need to look up to you, and few looks up to an autistic guy, no?

In some ways I would be classified as alpha male, in that I tend to go against the grain, will stand up to anybody over just about anything, would fight everybody on the few occasions when I used to get drunk, etc. And yet in other ways I would not be classified as alpha male. For example I prefer to be on casually good terms with people rather than trying to exert power over them, I don't go out of my way to be the head guy in the group, etc.

People are more complicated than these notions of being alpha or beta, our social intricacies are incomparable to other pack animals.

Wrong. You are not an alpha because you are stubborn, you are an alpha if you can make people do what you want them to do. Gladly!!

Four betas in a room will function better than four alphas in a room. That's what civilisation is, with a monolithic alpha state whom no-one can challenge. Civilisation rests on the realisation that alpha isn't necessarily the be all and end all, and beta isn't necessarily a bad thing. Constitutional monarchs are a way of having a single alpha who doesn't do anything, so that no-one else can challenge for that status and thus upset everyday life.

Wrong. 4 betas can work together, sure. But 3 betas and one alpha will speed up the process if they need to solve a problem.

I am happy to speak of people displaying alpha or beta traits, I just don't like the idea of categorizing them as alpha or beta, simply because the terms are designed for pack animals, and we are not pack animals - they can only be applied very vaguely to us as a species.

@Myth: I think the things you list are an example of what I speak of here. A lot of the traits you list as being 'alpha' are in fact just general traits that a lot of people can display in isolation without the whole alpha package. Think of how many people work hard while not attempting to dominate others. Or how many people are goal-driven without being stubborn or assertive.

Are you the one in your friendship group that the other adhere to? Do you make decisions for the group and have them follow? If so, you are an alpha.

Are you looking to someone for confirmation before you make decisions for the group when out with friends? Then you are a beta.

Are you just tagging along, never making decisions for the group as a whole when out with friends, you are an omega.


Clear example:

4 guys are out together.

Alpha: Come on guys, drink up and let's go to that other bar.
Beta: (to alpha) Don't you think it's time to go to that other bar?
Omega: Drinks up and gets ready to leave when the group so will.

I'm fine with being alphas and im fine being around betas. But one thing I can't stand are those omegas.

I sincerely look down on omegas. Grow some balls!!

They shut up even if they have expertise knowledge, unless being asked directly. Flaming idiots.

Granted though, they rarely have expertise knowledge of anything, and are generally meaningless in a group. Except for doing the mundane tasks, perhaps. Gah!!

[Noncommunist]

Wrong. 4 betas can work together, sure. But 3 betas and one alpha will speed up the process if they need to solve a problem.

And is probably a lot more vulnerable to groupthink unless one of the "betas" is a stubborn "beta" and came up with a reason why that solution will not work.

Are you the one in your friendship group that the other adhere to? Do you make decisions for the group and have them follow? If so, you are an alpha.

Are you looking to someone for confirmation before you make decisions for the group when out with friends? Then you are a beta.

Are you just tagging along, never making decisions for the group as a whole when out with friends, you are an omega.


Clear example:

4 guys are out together.

Alpha: Come on guys, drink up and let's go to that other bar.
Beta: (to alpha) Don't you think it's time to go to that other bar?
Omega: Drinks up and gets ready to leave when the group so will.


I sincerely look down on omegas. Grow some balls!!

They shut up even if they have expertise knowledge, unless being asked directly. Flaming idiots.

Granted though, they rarely have expertise knowledge of anything, and are generally meaningless in a group. Except for doing the mundane tasks, perhaps. Gah!!

If choice of bars is meaningless to them, going with the flow seems rational.

[rajpoot]

Unless I am mistaken the OP was not about the good effects war and/or military training can have one men, but the fact that there used to be a time when it helped build the character of a man. And to some extent that is true. People who have been trained and served are generally fitter, tougher and calmer and more in control that most who haven't.
But honestly there are other simpler ways to build character. Even the type of character those medieval soldiers used to have (if at all that is what we even need today).
The way I see it, boy should grow up to be tough, but not brutal. Some degree of sensitivity is required. They should have courage aplenty but also enough sense to remember that the stupid suicidal sort of courage needs to be broken out only in the most extreme cases. And they should also have a good measure of civility and common courtesy. Something akin to modern day chivalry.
And IMHO that is something that can be taught at home. Obligatory military service is not even required. Learn all this can easily be a part of growing up. Of course to teach this the parents should themselves have these qualities in the first place.

[HoreTore]

and calmer and more in control that most who haven't.

Now go compare homicide and suicide rates of servicemen vs non-servicemen.

And all the army ever taught me was how to steal.

[Kadagar_AV]

In the US Army they're almost even for the same demographics, after 13 years of war slowly eroded the longtime fact that the Army had much lower suicide rates for the same demographic. It only looks remotely bad for the US Military if you compare suicide rates to the entire population, with no regard for demographics.

Add to that - that suicidal people are more prone to join the army to "fix their lives".

[HoreTore]

In the US Army they're almost even for the same demographics, after 13 years of war slowly eroded the longtime fact that the Army had much lower suicide rates for the same demographic. It only looks remotely bad for the US Military if you compare suicide rates to the entire population, with no regard for demographics.

....And when you count the fact that the pre-sign up screening excludes those with psychological conditions which may lead to suicide?

[Kadagar_AV]

....And when you count the fact that the pre-sign up screening excludes those with psychological conditions which may lead to suicide?

... Yeah, because the screening catch 100 out of 100?? Aight?

You think suicidal candidates go "I am suicidal"?

Just admit that you have a lousy conscript training - and that you openly don't even respect your own country and its traditions - for adherence to a multicultural society... And move on with your life.

[HoreTore]

The preliminary screening at sesjon(no idea how to translate) catches the most obvious ones, ie. everyone with a history of mental illness. You also need to talk to a shrink there, which weeds out some more.

The recruit period(the first month or so), catches most of the remaining. IIRC, my squad lost 3 out of 20 or so, with at least one of them sent home for being a nutcase(the other was a pacifist, and I can't remember the last one).

To summarize, if you're going to compare anything, you would need to exclude everyone with a history of mental illness prior to age 18 from the control group. When that's done, the result is at least high enough to get the brass' attention, seeing as how mental illness after serving is actually taken seriously now.

....And the risk of suicides is the reason my service rifle in the home guard doesn't have a firing pin.



As for the comment on lousiness, well, I think that's a little too pathetic to comment on.

[Kadagar_AV]

The preliminary screening at sesjon(no idea how to translate) catches the most obvious ones, ie. everyone with a history of mental illness. You also need to talk to a shrink there, which weeds out some more.

The recruit period (the first month or so), catches most of the remaining. IIRC, my squad lost 3 out of 20 or so, with at least one of them sent home for being a nutcase(the other was a pacifist, and I can't remember the last one).

To summarize, if you're going to compare anything, you would need to exclude everyone with a history of mental illness prior to age 18 from the control group. When that's done, the result is at least high enough to get the brass' attention, seeing as how mental illness after serving is actually taken seriously now.

....And the risk of suicides is the reason my service rifle in the home guard doesn't have a firing pin.



As for the comment on lousiness, well, I think that's a little too pathetic to comment on.

Conscript talk with conscript knowledge.

Suicidal people are more prone to join the army than not.

If army keep suicidal statistics on par - it's a damn miracle.

No screening in the world can catch suicidal people who DO NOT openly state they are suicidal - like most people wont.

GAH, why am I arguing with a ******* Norwegian conscript who are adamant to prove me wrong while making a fool of his own case?

[HoreTore]

I am simply amazed at the wealth of sources you have used to back up your claim that suicidal persons have a higher concentration in the army than elsewhere.

I am also amazed at the academic backing you gave for your claim that spotting a suicidal person is impossible unless they openly state it. I suggest you notify the psychological association, it looks like quite a number of them are surplus personnel. After all, all they need to do is ask a simple question.

[Kadagar_AV]

I am simply amazed at the wealth of sources you have used to back up your claim that suicidal persons have a higher concentration in the army than elsewhere.

I am also amazed at the academic backing you gave for your claim that spotting a suicidal person is impossible unless they openly state it. I suggest you notify the psychological association, it looks like quite a number of them are surplus personnel. After all, all they need to do is ask a simple question.

Let's leave it for the rest of the posters to be the jury on this one. I've had enough of arguing you.

I only source when things are not blatantly obvious, except in La-la-la-land.

[HoreTore]

Let's leave it for the rest of the posters to be the jury on this one. I've had enough of arguing you.

I only source when things are not blatantly obvious, except in La-la-la-land.

Blatantly obvious like, for example, your utter failure to understand crime statistics? I see...

Guys guys... relax. Both your countries suck. 'Murica!

Now that's something we can all agree to!

[Rhyfelwyr]

You are probably both right. People with suicidal tendencies are more likely to join the army, and the experience of army life makes people more likely to be driven to suicide. The two positions are not mutually exclusive.

[HoreTore]

PTSD makes you more likely to commit suicide, and PTSD is more common among veterans than others.

As for suicidal persons being impossible to spot, that is of course complete nonsense. Psychologists starts probing for suicidal thoughts from at least puberty, and it's quite a lot more complicated than just asking them if they're suicidal. I work at a school with a higher than normal concentration of such students, so I know the drill. Anyway, these things are of course logged, and the army won't take them in.

[Kadagar_AV]

PTSD makes you more likely to commit suicide, and PTSD is more common among veterans than others.

As for suicidal persons being impossible to spot, that is of course complete nonsense. Psychologists starts probing for suicidal thoughts from at least puberty, and it's quite a lot more complicated than just asking them if they're suicidal. I work at a school with a higher than normal concentration of such students, so I know the drill. Anyway, these things are of course logged, and the army won't take them in.

Absolute BS.

[HoreTore]

Absolute BS.

lol.

I bow to your superior argument.

[Kadagar_AV]

lol.

I bow to your superior argument.

Conscript talk with conscript knowledge.

Suicidal people are more prone to join the army than not.

If army keep suicidal statistics on par - it's a damn miracle.

No screening in the world can catch suicidal people who DO NOT openly state they are suicidal - like most people wont.

GAH, why am I arguing with a ******* Norwegian conscript who are adamant to prove me wrong while making a fool of his own case?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< This is what I wrote before. It still stands, and what you wrote is BS coming from a conscript who have no clue what so ever.

[HoreTore]

lol.

The suicidal tag is latched onto students long before they're open about their thoughts. The very idea that you have to say suicide in order for a psychologist to understand it is just absolute rubbish. Psychologists are slightly more clever than that. I assume you just disregarded the paper I gave on methods to uncover suicidal thoughts? I'll give you a clue: it was longer than the sentence "are you planning to whack yourself?"

Added to that, the army bans you for a lot more than just suicidal thoughts; just about any record of mental illness will get you booted from service. And when you ban everyone with a history of teenage mental illness, you end up with a rather skewed population group. One where you would suspect a smaller amount of suicides.

[Kadagar_AV]

lol.

The suicidal tag is latched onto students long before they're open about their thoughts. The very idea that you have to say suicide in order for a psychologist to understand it is just absolute rubbish. Psychologists are slightly more clever than that. I assume you just disregarded the paper I gave on methods to uncover suicidal thoughts? I'll give you a clue: it was longer than the sentence "are you planning to whack yourself?"

Added to that, the army bans you for a lot more than just suicidal thoughts; just about any record of mental illness will get you booted from service. And when you ban everyone with a history of teenage mental illness, you end up with a rather skewed population group. One where you would suspect a smaller amount of suicides.

You talk about Norway now, aren't you?

And even that system - that is 10000% more legitable than the US - is still not fool proof.

Remember this is an international board.

[HoreTore]

You talk about Norway now, aren't you?

I talk of the system I know, and assume the difference isn't massive among comparable countries.

The US wont let people with a history of mental illness own a gun, and so I assume they won't let them join the army either.

[Kadagar_AV]

I talk of the system I know, and assume the difference isn't massive among comparable countries.

The US wont let people with a history of mental illness own a gun, and so I assume they won't let them join the army either.

Cool story bro.

I guess it makes sense because no one in the states commits suicide with a gun.

[HoreTore]

Cool story bro.

I guess it makes sense because no one in the states commits suicide with a gun.

Completely pointless post, as always.

[Husar]

All this talk is weird. PTSD only occurs if the army goes to war if I'm not mistaken. If the army goes to war, people will also usually die in the war. In this case, the benefits of being in the army probably do not outweigh the downsides of having war, such as the cost of lives and possible destruction of stuff on either or both sides. When we just assume the army never goes to war anyway because we have reached such peaceful times (despite some of the rhetoric in the Ukraine thread), then having an army is probably the most expensive and ludicrous way to prevent suicides in the first place. And it's no surprise that brainwashing people and pretending to give them a useful purpose in life (and new friends) can remove their suicidal thoughts.

[The Stranger]

Blatantly obvious like, for example, your utter failure to understand crime statistics? I see...



Now that's something we can all agree to!

I thought you figured out by now that if you dont share the view of Kad, you are insane.

[The Stranger]

All this talk is weird. PTSD only occurs if the army goes to war if I'm not mistaken. If the army goes to war, people will also usually die in the war. In this case, the benefits of being in the army probably do not outweigh the downsides of having war, such as the cost of lives and possible destruction of stuff on either or both sides. When we just assume the army never goes to war anyway because we have reached such peaceful times (despite some of the rhetoric in the Ukraine thread), then having an army is probably the most expensive and ludicrous way to prevent suicides in the first place. And it's no surprise that brainwashing people and pretending to give them a useful purpose in life (and new friends) can remove their suicidal thoughts.

are suicidal people also more likely to look for a dangerous situation in which their life may be at risk, and thus are more likely to get killed in the army? Or is this not something common? It wouldnt be so hard to imagine imo.

[Kadagar_AV]

I thought you figured out by now that if you dont share the view of Kad, you are insane.

Finally, someone who GETS me... I should put this in my sig - but RVG's idiocy still just happens to be soooo juicy...

Anyway, if you want to follow me as a apprentice or do I dare say, disciple... The first thing you have to do is put a cucumber in your ear. Not a whole one, silly, just enough so it fits neatly, and of course only in the left ear.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I sincerely look down on omegas. Grow some balls!!

They shut up even if they have expertise knowledge, unless being asked directly. Flaming idiots.

Granted though, they rarely have expertise knowledge of anything, and are generally meaningless in a group. Except for doing the mundane tasks, perhaps. Gah!!