Jump to content
Baseops Forums
tac airlifter

The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, SocialD said:

 

I could listen to him talk for hours. Very insightful video. Thanks for sharing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2020 at 9:20 PM, Sim said:

 

Wokeness training is cancelled. Signed - POTUS. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/M-20-34.pdf 

 

The latest: "Air Force moves to cancel contracts for training on white privilege"

"The Air Force is taking the first steps toward canceling any contracts for diversity and unconscious bias training that include segments on white privilege and other controversial subjects, as called for by the White House." Etc, etc, etc.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/09/22/air-force-moves-to-cancel-contracts-for-training-on-white-privilege/

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, waveshaper said:

The latest: "Air Force moves to cancel contracts for training on white privilege"

"The Air Force is taking the first steps toward canceling any contracts for diversity and unconscious bias training that include segments on white privilege and other controversial subjects, as called for by the White House." Etc, etc, etc.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/09/22/air-force-moves-to-cancel-contracts-for-training-on-white-privilege/

I'd say a step in the right direction. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, the honest discussions with each other are worth so much more then having our Airmen browbeaten about how they're wrong, always been wrong and always will be wrong.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should be focusing on the mission that UNITES us, not the race baiting academic trash that divides us.  Diversity is not strength, unity is strength.  And we’re strongest when diverse people have unity of purpose in defending our nation together, executing the mission, and crushing our enemies.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

We should be focusing on the mission that UNITES us, not the race baiting academic trash that divides us.  Diversity is not strength, unity is strength.  And we’re strongest when diverse people have unity of purpose in defending our nation together, executing the mission, and crushing our enemies.

I am wondering what happened to that thing they used to tell us all in initial training that we were no longer a gaggle of individuals, but that we were all "Airmen" now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Hacker said:

I am wondering what happened to that thing they used to tell us all in initial training that we were no longer a gaggle of individuals, but that we were all "Airmen" now.

It's a thin line right? Unity of purpose is spot on but when you unify individuals into identical you lose one of your greatest strengths. Certainly not an easy problem to untangle. I think this is a good change but we need to be careful to not destroy progress made either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FLEA said:

you lose one of your greatest strengths.

Well, I'm a staunch individualist...but that being said, there has never been any data or proof (outside of a cliche catch phrase that was foisted upon society in the 1990s in pursuit of an ideological narrative) that "diversity is our strength."

I don't have a problem with the concept if it is actually true...but unfortunately we bypassed the "falsification test" part and went right to the "this is fact and we cannot question it" part.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hacker said:

I am wondering what happened to that thing they used to tell us all in initial training that we were no longer a gaggle of individuals, but that we were all "Airmen" now.

"All animals are equal..."

But seriously, America is a great place because so many different types of people from different races and religions and ethnicities can come together with the common goal of making it rich someday.  Recognizing that some have it harder than others in seeking that common American goal is ok.  Nobody should be systematically and officially held back and the military is a great place to watch that integration happen.

I'm also glad they've toned down the "men are rapists" and "whites are privileged" rhetoric.  While I don't have issue with that information per se, I'm not sure it makes us a more legal force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hacker said:

Well, I'm a staunch individualist...but that being said, there has never been any data or proof (outside of a cliche catch phrase that was foisted upon society in the 1990s in pursuit of an ideological narrative) that "diversity is our strength."

I don't have a problem with the concept if it is actually true...but unfortunately we bypassed the "falsification test" part and went right to the "this is fact and we cannot question it" part.

Google scholar is your friend: 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=cognitive+diversity+and+team+performance&oq=cognitive+diversity

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, FLEA said:

I'm missing the relevant data about military operations in there.

But, more importantly, "diversity is our strength" has *nothing* to do with your search terms.

That statement is, and always has been, a reference to diversity of immutable human characteristics.

I'm all for diversity of thought being a force multiplier, and there's plenty of evidence in the social sciences for that...but that's not what people mean when the term is used.

Edited by Hacker
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hacker said:

I'm missing the relevant data about military operations in there.

Irellevent. And if you think the military has a monopoly on leadership and teamwork tradecraft how would you describe the last 20 years in the AF? 

 

Edit: also literally the second study down was training a team sample to work the air filtration on space vessels. If you can't see how that correlates to working aircraft systems as a crew I can't help you sorry. 

Edited by FLEA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FLEA said:

Irellevent. And if you think the military has a monopoly on leadership and teamwork tradecraft how would you describe the last 20 years in the AF? 

Irrelevant?  Hardly.

What other organizational groups in human society have the specific purpose of waging state-sponsored violence, with a specific and acknowledged risk to one's individual life, in pursuit of political goals?

There are a *lot* of unique leadership and teamwork aspects to the military that aren't found elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hacker said:

Irrelevant?  Hardly.

What other organizational groups in human society have the specific purpose of waging state-sponsored violence, with a specific and acknowledged risk to one's individual life, in pursuit of political goals?

There are a *lot* of unique leadership and teamwork aspects to the military that aren't found elsewhere.

Yes, as I said, irrelevant. The problem set has no bearing on the team dynamic. We know how humans think. We know where vulnerabilities to cognitive bias exist. Unless you somehow believe the idea you might have to fire a weapon in anger somehow makes you immune to cognitive bias? Not sure where you plan on going with this man. It doesn't take Simon Sinek to tell you if I give the same target to 10 identical F-16 pilots to hit, they are going to come up with 10 identical run in lines. I don't want 1 option. I want 10 options, of which 7 will be garbage, but now I have 3 decent ones to flex operations around which shit changes. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FLEA said:

Yes, as I said, irrelevant. The problem set has no bearing on the team dynamic. We know how humans think. We know where vulnerabilities to cognitive bias exist. Unless you somehow believe the idea you might have to fire a weapon in anger somehow makes you immune to cognitive bias? Not sure where you plan on going with this man. It doesn't take Simon Sinek to tell you if I give the same target to 10 identical F-16 pilots to hit, they are going to come up with 10 identical run in lines. I don't want 1 option. I want 10 options, of which 7 will be garbage, but now I have 3 decent ones to flex operations around which shit changes. 

Again, I agree that diversity of thought is vital...but that's not what any of this is about, and that's not what my comment was about that you responded to originally.

You're sidestepping the larger issue, that the AF's focus on diversity of immutable human characteristics (which is the opposite of the teamwork concept of us all adopting the identity of "Airman") has literally zero to do with the cognitive diversity, or diversity of thought, that you're talking about.

Even worse is the belief that must exist to support the idea, that immutable human characteristics are an avatar for an individual's thoughts, beliefs, character, or abilities.

If the USAF wants to have a diversity of immutable characteristics in the crew force, for whatever social goal they seek, that's fine by me. What's objectionable is when that objective is sold as improving the ability to accomplish the mission (e.g. "diversity is our strength")...again, a statement which has never been put to a falsification test, and won't be because it exists to support an ideological perspective that has already decided what is "good."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Hacker said:

Again, I agree that diversity of thought is vital...but that's not what any of this is about, and that's not what my comment was about that you responded to originally.

You're sidestepping the larger issue, that the AF's focus on diversity of immutable human characteristics (which is the opposite of the teamwork concept of us all adopting the identity of "Airman") has literally zero to do with the cognitive diversity, or diversity of thought, that you're talking about.

Even worse is the belief that must exist to support the idea, that immutable human characteristics are an avatar for an individual's thoughts, beliefs, character, or abilities.

If the USAF wants to have a diversity of immutable characteristics in the crew force, for whatever social goal they seek, that's fine by me. What's objectionable is when that objective is sold as improving the ability to accomplish the mission (e.g. "diversity is our strength")...again, a statement which has never been put to a falsification test, and won't be because it exists to support an ideological perspective that has already decided what is "good."

Sort of, I'm not sidestepping, I simply see the two things are related. There are expereinces for example only a woman will have and as a man I never will. Child birth for instance. And while that may seem irrelevant to military operations I do know at least 1 squadron Ander who almost sent to spouse of a deployed airmen out the door to potentially murder their newborn child because before consulting with his female first seargent he didn't recognize the symptoms of post partum depression. 

I also look at stuff like female engagement terms, the history of the OSS in France and the use of female analyst in the IC to recognize things like signs of hidden pregnancy or menopause on political leaders to realise there is a lot to be gained by having women on our team. 

Now the case for racial diversity is harder to make, and im not quite there yet, but I see enough of the threads to realise that there is generally a good case to be made that POC are going to largely have a different expereince growing up then non-POC. 

Edit: let's describe my thoughts like this. Unity of purpose is the peak of the mountain. We all want to climb the same direction, up. But as a planner, I want people who started from all sides of the mountain because from the bottom each approach seems radically different and I want people to communicate the best approach to me. Generally, to do that, I need to maximize my probabilities of getting people who stand at hard to reach bases of that mountain. 

Edited by FLEA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lots of what you describe above is fine.

but teaching "unconscious bias" training ain't what you describe.

telling me i'm a racist and if i deny it that's even more proof that i am one...doesn't seem to be fair or helpful to winning wars.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, FLEA said:

There are expereinces for example only a woman will have and as a man I never will.

The entire point of The Enlightenment was that logic and reason could be used to transcend individual human experiences and thus individuals could have empathy for that which we did not experience ourselves.

So, it doesn't require a person of another gender, another race, another [insert characteristic here] to be present for any other human to comprehend, understand, and empathize with their perspective and/or lived experiences. You don't actually have to feel childbirth to understand what it is like.  You don't have to be a "POC" to understand the experience of what it must be like, whatever that is supposed to mean.

If you want to argue that people of different *cultures* bring different perspectives to the table, that's perfectly valid...but to say that immutable characteristics are responsible for (or an avatar for) differences in thought and character is precisely the kind of "logic" that was used to undergird actual tribalism (or racism, if you'd rather frame it that way) for hundreds (thousands?) of years.  No two humans are alike, regardless of immutable characteristics, so Enlightenment logic on the issue is a truism for all humans to be able to form social groups. People of the same immutable characteristics can have a widely divergent set of experiences, beliefs, and character, just as people of a wide variety of immutable characteristics can all believe in the same orthodoxy. Diversity of immutable characteristics is not an avatar for diversity of perspectives, simply put.

Edited by Hacker
  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hacker said:

The entire point of The Enlightenment was that logic and reason could be used to transcend individual human experiences and thus individuals could have empathy for that which we did not experience ourselves.

So, it doesn't require a person of another gender, another race, another [insert characteristic here] to be present for any other human to comprehend, understand, and empathize with their perspective and/or lived experiences. You don't actually have to feel childbirth to understand what it is like.  You don't have to be a "POC" to understand the experience of what it must be like, whatever that is supposed to mean.

If you want to argue that people of different *cultures* bring different perspectives to the table, that's perfectly valid...but to say that immutable characteristics are responsible for (or an avatar for) differences in thought and character is precisely the kind of "logic" that was used to undergird actual tribalism (or racism, if you'd rather frame it that way) for hundreds (thousands?) of years.  No two humans are alike, regardless of immutable characteristics, so Enlightenment logic on the issue is a truism for all humans to be able to form social groups. People of the same immutable characteristics can have a widely divergent set of experiences, beliefs, and character, just as people of a wide variety of immutable characteristics can all believe in the same orthodoxy. Diversity of immutable characteristics is not an avatar for diversity of perspectives, simply put.

I think you are 1/2 right and 1/2 wrong. 

For one, no-one cares about the enlightenment. It was like 300 years ago and people still thought leaches and humor letting were acceptable forms of health care. Sure they made some awesome philosophical advances but its not like they got there and said "hah! We did it, we are at the epitome of human knowledge and understanding and we can stop now." Our recognition for how humans receive and process information has gone very far. In fact, hailing the outcomes of the enlightenment as the epitome of understanding, is in of itself bandwagon bias which is the cognitive bias associated with adhering to principles because those principles are the ones you always knew. So lets recognize that bias now and recognize that people in the enlightenment could have been very wrong and we don't know that yet. 

I also think you confuse sympathy and empathy. Empathy is being able to feel the physical and emotional experiences as another person does. If a friend at work has a brother that died and I don't have a brother, I can't say "I know how you feel." Nothing in my life would ever help me relate to how losing a sibling would feel. A best friend is close but not as close. A parent is different. I can possess sympathy for that person, and understand they are under a great deal of grief, I can never experience true empathy for them. I think there is a great deal of assumption in the idea that you can empathize with anyone. 

You are correct, that you can have two white males who are more different than a white male and a black female. However, from a strategic leadership point of view, I think people are playing the margins game. Is this possible, sure? Is it likely, probably not as much. And since in reality, noone has the time to vet every applicants complete background or make a comprehensive list of experiences, they are simply going to disregard your individuality and lump you into a group to play a game of betting odds over one that values individual achievement. The going mindset here is a diverse organization of 40 different thinkers will outperform a uniform institution of 40 identical top performers. If you think about each human being as a ven diagram plot, they are trying to maximize their chances of increasing the total footprint as large as possible and minimizing areas of circular overlap. Do I necessarily agree with this? Not really. But I see the angle, and I understand from a strategic context people in charge of large organizations believe the ends are far more important than your individual feelings about feeling underappreciated because of who you are. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FLEA said:

 And since in reality, noone has the time to vet every applicants complete background or make a comprehensive list of experiences, they are simply going to disregard your individuality and lump you into a group to play a game of betting odds over one that values individual achievement.

You just described racial profiling. To be clear, are you condoning this?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FLEA said:

It doesn't take Simon Sinek to tell you if I give the same target to 10 identical F-16 pilots to hit, they are going to come up with 10 identical run in lines. I don't want 1 option. I want 10 options, of which 7 will be garbage, but now I have 3 decent ones to flex operations around which shit changes. 

Fake news.  This example is clearly systemically biased and false. The only way to get 7 garbage attack plans out of a group of fighter pilots would be to have a diverse group consisting of 1 Hog driver, 1 Viper driver, 1 fat Amy "driver" and 7 Mudhen crew.

20200923_205721.jpg

  • Haha 5
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FlyingWolf said:

You just described racial profiling. To be clear, are you condoning this?

I didn't describe racial profiling at all. You quoted a description on cognitive diversity which is a well study and established phenomenon that has nothing to do with race. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hacker said:

Again, I agree that diversity of thought is vital...but that's not what any of this is about, and that's not what my comment was about that you responded to originally.

You're sidestepping the larger issue, that the AF's focus on diversity of immutable human characteristics (which is the opposite of the teamwork concept of us all adopting the identity of "Airman") has literally zero to do with the cognitive diversity, or diversity of thought, that you're talking about.

Even worse is the belief that must exist to support the idea, that immutable human characteristics are an avatar for an individual's thoughts, beliefs, character, or abilities.

The above, x1000...

The below, not so much.

6 hours ago, FLEA said:

For one, no-one cares about the enlightenment. It was like 300 years ago and people still thought leaches and humor letting were acceptable forms of health care. Sure they made some awesome philosophical advances but its not like they got there and said "hah! We did it, we are at the epitome of human knowledge and understanding and we can stop now." Our recognition for how humans receive and process information has gone very far. In fact, hailing the outcomes of the enlightenment as the epitome of understanding, is in of itself bandwagon bias which is the cognitive bias associated with adhering to principles because those principles are the ones you always knew. So lets recognize that bias now and recognize that people in the enlightenment could have been very wrong and we don't know that yet. 

I also think you confuse sympathy and empathy. Empathy is being able to feel the physical and emotional experiences as another person does. If a friend at work has a brother that died and I don't have a brother, I can't say "I know how you feel." Nothing in my life would ever help me relate to how losing a sibling would feel. A best friend is close but not as close. A parent is different. I can possess sympathy for that person, and understand they are under a great deal of grief, I can never experience true empathy for them. I think there is a great deal of assumption in the idea that you can empathize with anyone. 

You are correct, that you can have two white males who are more different than a white male and a black female. However, from a strategic leadership point of view, I think people are playing the margins game. Is this possible, sure? Is it likely, probably not as much. And since in reality, noone has the time to vet every applicants complete background or make a comprehensive list of experiences, they are simply going to disregard your individuality and lump you into a group to play a game of betting odds over one that values individual achievement. The going mindset here is a diverse organization of 40 different thinkers will outperform a uniform institution of 40 identical top performers. If you think about each human being as a ven diagram plot, they are trying to maximize their chances of increasing the total footprint as large as possible and minimizing areas of circular overlap. Do I necessarily agree with this? Not really. But I see the angle, and I understand from a strategic context people in charge of large organizations believe the ends are far more important than your individual feelings about feeling underappreciated because of who you are. 

To be clear, the bold part of your argument there is actual racism (not the fake news racism ala current political and social discourse, but actual, genuine racism). You are ascribing differences to people based on their external, immutable characteristics - whether positive or negative, that is racism.

Your bit about the enlightenment is also off target. It's more important now than at any time in the past 70-80 years probably. The idea that individuals had worth and rights was transformative for humanity as a whole, not just the (Western) culture that enacted it. Since large parts of the world are yet to be "enlightened," it is ever relevant. And if you are suggesting there are enlightenment ideas that are "wrong" which ones? The supremacy of fact, reason, and logic? What don't we know yet, IYO?

Finally, thanks for the pedantic lesson on the differences between empathy and sympathy, though I'm sure most of the fighter pilots on this board still give precisely 0 Eucks about either. This discussion has brought forth the central conflict occurring in our culture right now: facts vs feelings. I think you're on the side of feelings.

Edited by ViperMan
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...