A case study and new micro-level data in Uganda, where the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) forcibly recruited thousands of youth and plied them with threats and violence in order to make them stay. The evidence suggests that child [soldier] recruits were less able than adult ones, so superior ability is not a driving force of child soldiering in this case. Rather, the Uganda data and interviews suggest that children were retained because they were more easily indoctrinated and misinformed than adults, and had more difficulty escaping—with ease of indoctrination being especially influential. … Initial data from a random sample of [African rebel] groups display two relationships consistent with our model. First, where we observe child recruitment we also tend to observe forcible recruitment (one of the most easily measured forms of coercion). Second, forced child recruitment is most common when punishment is cheap. … Child recruitment is inversely associated with military protection of refugee and displacement camps. (
There is not a lot of evidence that Western Armies need people who are " particularly easily indoctrinated, misinformed, and intimidated". Many armies did have older long term soldiers: England's pre-WW1 "Old Contemptible", and the pre-WW2 Marine Corp particularly come to mind.
The preference toward the younger recruits came with mass conscription. When you start pulling massive numbers of people out society to man your army, it is extremely disruptive to pull the fully functioning working people out. I have seen it stated that the Germans did not starve during WW1 because of the allied blockade, but because they had pulled too many people out of the agricultural sector.
The various reasons noted above explain why it was easiest to keep using the youngsters.
For starters all your arguments about schools being primarily signalling devices suggests to me that other things being equal an 18 year old (who has more inherint physical fitness) is more valuable. Indeed, if one assumes that military skills are substantially different than the skills gained in most civilian occupations (or simply unique to the weapons systems used) then the 28 year old would be less valuable.
Also I suspect that the supply of 18 year olds willing to enter the army is much larger than that for 28 year olds at comparable levels of compensation.
By 28 one is often married or romantically committed making one more averse to leaving home for long deployments and having been on your own for longer less willing to accept the army culture and curtailing of liberties.
Also 18 year olds can potentially re-enlist more times while still physically capable of battle. Even if you assume they leave at the same rate as 28 year olds by recuiting 18 year olds the military creates a pool of young men with military experience that could be drafted in a crisis.
Well here we get indoctrinated in public schools and conscription. Both institutions tend to produce people who support those institutions. It seems to me that they quickly develop a steady-state that is hard to change even when its highly inefficient. If the state feeds you, subsidies you, educates you and trains how to fight for itself, it easily crowds-out any alternatives in most minds.
The army is really a indoctrination centre, perhaps also on biological level. You get to hear a lot of patriotic music, oaths and "rituals" that have an effect subconsciously.
I suppose older people have much more experience in fraud, contracts and life in general and so on not to make such hasty contracts with the state. I imagine it would be much harder to make them to do the same things.
The US also probably prefers younger soldiers because they are more easily indoctrinated, misinformed, and intimidated.
I also think this is misleading, but I confess I have a bias in favor of the US Military.
That said, isn't it just as likely that the US prefers younger soldiers because they are less likely to have already been indoctrinated, misinformed, or intimidated against the military's interests?
11. The idea that education is like what you find in schools.12. The honesty and accuracy of teachers; that being honest and accurate is acting like a teacher.13. People that claim to be dispassionate or impartial. Channeling John Taylor Gatto...14. Working or living in a socially-determined location, over choosing. 14.a. Assigned work over chosen work. 15. Surveillance and being judged.16. Wisdom from authority as opposed to personal or peer sources. 17. Structured time over unstructured time.
18. The obedient over the disobedient. ("Control of the classroom is important for a teacher...")
Disproportionately lower cost of recruitment- 18 year olds have lower opportunity cost relative to their skill disparity with 28 year olds. Also, going ten years of eligibility without enlisting signals unwillingness to enlist/higher cost of recruitment.
9. Perfection (100% A+) is attainable. In fact, most of the time, when someone does badly, it's because they didn't care enough to read the assigned material.
You're assuming that skills developed in the civilian world are equally, or nearly equally, useful in the military.
In cases where this is true (e.g. civil affairs officers) the military actually does try to recruit older, more experienced people.
In cases where this is not true (e.g. the vast majority of cases--pretty much all enlisted soldiers, most types of officers, etc.) the military tries to recruit people who are as young as possible.
If military skills are mostly not equivalent to civilian skills, isn't that a pretty good explanation of why the military chooses to hire young people and choose those who gain the most skills for promotion? This has the extra benefit of explaining why you can't join the military as a Captain or a Gunnery Sergeant--because when you first join the military you are only skilled enough to be at the bottom of the rank structure, no matter how awesome your resume is.
There are other reasons why somebody might want to ban gay marriage that are reasonable and not based on social concerns.A- Religion (faulty premise, reasonable conclusion of it.)B- Not liking seeing it (if they're highly selfish)
7. Saying things that earn you points, instead of saying things you think are true.
8. Having a consistent routine each day, particularly one that involves going some place other than your home and doing quiet activities indoors for most of the daylight hours.
I don't know if this is true. First I look at military workers a bit like ruggedized equipment: an IT specialist in the military deploying to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other zones of conflict and instability I think would have to be built to withstand greater deprivations than a civilian IT specialist working in the Bay Area.
Second, I'm not sure 18 year old men are as indoctrinatable as either children or the elderly: they're at the peak of testosterone production and are probably one of the harder populations for institutions to control. This is closer to my conspiracy theory for military conscription or inducement: a space less paternal than prison but more paternal than civil society to contain/buy out a relatively instable population.
Abortion + prison + military inducement may sop up quite a bit of chaos out of the larger civil society.
Conversions to a religion tend to come in adolescence or early adulthood. Conversions later in life tend to come only after some traumatic event or through the influence of a spouse.
Have you read Judith Harris' "The Nurture Assumption"? Maybe the kids act like that because they share genes with an abusive, alcoholic father. They also might have peers who behave in that way.
There is not a lot of evidence that Western Armies need people who are " particularly easily indoctrinated, misinformed, and intimidated". Many armies did have older long term soldiers: England's pre-WW1 "Old Contemptible", and the pre-WW2 Marine Corp particularly come to mind.
The preference toward the younger recruits came with mass conscription. When you start pulling massive numbers of people out society to man your army, it is extremely disruptive to pull the fully functioning working people out. I have seen it stated that the Germans did not starve during WW1 because of the allied blockade, but because they had pulled too many people out of the agricultural sector.
The various reasons noted above explain why it was easiest to keep using the youngsters.
For starters all your arguments about schools being primarily signalling devices suggests to me that other things being equal an 18 year old (who has more inherint physical fitness) is more valuable. Indeed, if one assumes that military skills are substantially different than the skills gained in most civilian occupations (or simply unique to the weapons systems used) then the 28 year old would be less valuable.
Also I suspect that the supply of 18 year olds willing to enter the army is much larger than that for 28 year olds at comparable levels of compensation.
By 28 one is often married or romantically committed making one more averse to leaving home for long deployments and having been on your own for longer less willing to accept the army culture and curtailing of liberties.
Also 18 year olds can potentially re-enlist more times while still physically capable of battle. Even if you assume they leave at the same rate as 28 year olds by recuiting 18 year olds the military creates a pool of young men with military experience that could be drafted in a crisis.
Well here we get indoctrinated in public schools and conscription. Both institutions tend to produce people who support those institutions. It seems to me that they quickly develop a steady-state that is hard to change even when its highly inefficient. If the state feeds you, subsidies you, educates you and trains how to fight for itself, it easily crowds-out any alternatives in most minds.
The army is really a indoctrination centre, perhaps also on biological level. You get to hear a lot of patriotic music, oaths and "rituals" that have an effect subconsciously.
I suppose older people have much more experience in fraud, contracts and life in general and so on not to make such hasty contracts with the state. I imagine it would be much harder to make them to do the same things.
The US also probably prefers younger soldiers because they are more easily indoctrinated, misinformed, and intimidated.
I also think this is misleading, but I confess I have a bias in favor of the US Military.
That said, isn't it just as likely that the US prefers younger soldiers because they are less likely to have already been indoctrinated, misinformed, or intimidated against the military's interests?
11. The idea that education is like what you find in schools.12. The honesty and accuracy of teachers; that being honest and accurate is acting like a teacher.13. People that claim to be dispassionate or impartial. Channeling John Taylor Gatto...14. Working or living in a socially-determined location, over choosing. 14.a. Assigned work over chosen work. 15. Surveillance and being judged.16. Wisdom from authority as opposed to personal or peer sources. 17. Structured time over unstructured time.
18. The obedient over the disobedient. ("Control of the classroom is important for a teacher...")
Good to see you noting downsides of farmer values,in particular, those of group indoctrination. Nice change!
10. Enduring boredom is virtuous.
Thursday, what happened to your blog?
Disproportionately lower cost of recruitment- 18 year olds have lower opportunity cost relative to their skill disparity with 28 year olds. Also, going ten years of eligibility without enlisting signals unwillingness to enlist/higher cost of recruitment.
9. Perfection (100% A+) is attainable. In fact, most of the time, when someone does badly, it's because they didn't care enough to read the assigned material.
You're assuming that skills developed in the civilian world are equally, or nearly equally, useful in the military.
In cases where this is true (e.g. civil affairs officers) the military actually does try to recruit older, more experienced people.
In cases where this is not true (e.g. the vast majority of cases--pretty much all enlisted soldiers, most types of officers, etc.) the military tries to recruit people who are as young as possible.
If military skills are mostly not equivalent to civilian skills, isn't that a pretty good explanation of why the military chooses to hire young people and choose those who gain the most skills for promotion? This has the extra benefit of explaining why you can't join the military as a Captain or a Gunnery Sergeant--because when you first join the military you are only skilled enough to be at the bottom of the rank structure, no matter how awesome your resume is.
There are other reasons why somebody might want to ban gay marriage that are reasonable and not based on social concerns.A- Religion (faulty premise, reasonable conclusion of it.)B- Not liking seeing it (if they're highly selfish)
7. Saying things that earn you points, instead of saying things you think are true.
8. Having a consistent routine each day, particularly one that involves going some place other than your home and doing quiet activities indoors for most of the daylight hours.
I don't know if this is true. First I look at military workers a bit like ruggedized equipment: an IT specialist in the military deploying to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other zones of conflict and instability I think would have to be built to withstand greater deprivations than a civilian IT specialist working in the Bay Area.
Second, I'm not sure 18 year old men are as indoctrinatable as either children or the elderly: they're at the peak of testosterone production and are probably one of the harder populations for institutions to control. This is closer to my conspiracy theory for military conscription or inducement: a space less paternal than prison but more paternal than civil society to contain/buy out a relatively instable population.
Abortion + prison + military inducement may sop up quite a bit of chaos out of the larger civil society.
Conversions to a religion tend to come in adolescence or early adulthood. Conversions later in life tend to come only after some traumatic event or through the influence of a spouse.
Have you read Judith Harris' "The Nurture Assumption"? Maybe the kids act like that because they share genes with an abusive, alcoholic father. They also might have peers who behave in that way.