quote:

Originally posted by BigRonW:
Is ASKING people really an efficient (or accurate) way to find out what made them join? My mind goes immediately to an experiment carried out in England by the University of Aston. On alternate days, the played as "piped music" either accordion music, or an "oompah band". Then they measured how much German and French wine got sold on those days. When the accordion music played, French wine was the best seller, when it was the Blasband, German wine sold best. Customers who had bought wine stated categorically that their decision had NOT been influenced by the music. Sure it didn't. Sales switched from 70% to 30% on alternate days purely randomly? We have a saying here in the UK - "Tell that to the Marines" (indicating derision and disbelief.)

The USA keeps records of where recruits come from a closely guarded secret (there seems no logic to do so, but that's the military!) However they don't keep the origins of casualties secret: they actually publish them! And there are academics who have made it their task to enumerate the origin of ALL casualties from Iraq. It seems a fair assumption that casualties are random - so we have a picture of where a randomly selected proportion of the USMC comes from. And their origins are NOT random. They're far more likely to come either from an area right next to a military base, or from a small town you've never heard of in the midwest than from one of the great cities (Boston, New York, LA) Places where "The Future" for most people is either working for the town factory (before it gets closed down by Chinese competition) or leaving to look for something better somewhere else. Or they're following a family member into the service - which is commoner in the USA than most other countries.

Enlisting is EXACTLY like buying wine in a supemarket. You do it first... then when you get home and your partner asks "Why that one?" you find a reason why. And asking people why they bought French or German wine is just as unlikely to get you a sensible answer: they don't know - but they're not goijg to admit that to YOU.

quote:

Is ASKING people really an efficient (or accurate) way to find out what made them join? My mind goes immediately to an experiment carried out in England by the University of Aston. On alternate days, the played as "piped music" either accordion music, or an "oompah band". Then they measured how much German and French wine got sold on those days. When the accordion music played, French wine was the best seller, when it was the Blasband, German wine sold best. Customers who had bought wine stated categorically that their decision had NOT been influenced by the music. Sure it didn't. Sales switched from 70% to 30% on alternate days purely randomly? We have a saying here in the UK - "Tell that to the Marines" (indicating derision and disbelief.)

The USA keeps records of where recruits come from a closely guarded secret (there seems no logic to do so, but that's the military!) However they don't keep the origins of casualties secret: they actually publish them! And there are academics who have made it their task to enumerate the origin of ALL casualties from Iraq. It seems a fair assumption that casualties are random - so we have a picture of where a randomly selected proportion of the USMC comes from. And their origins are NOT random. They're far more likely to come either from an area right next to a military base, or from a small town you've never heard of in the midwest than from one of the great cities (Boston, New York, LA) Places where "The Future" for most people is either working for the town factory (before it gets closed down by Chinese competition) or leaving to look for something better somewhere else. Or they're following a family member into the service - which is commoner in the USA than most other countries.

Enlisting is EXACTLY like buying wine in a supemarket. You do it first... then when you get home and your partner asks "Why that one?" you find a reason why. And asking people why they bought French or German wine is just as unlikely to get you a sensible answer: they don't know - but they're not goijg to admit that to YOU.

quote:

Originally posted by Ltmousseman:
BigRon, what the heck are you talking about, "Enlisting is EXACTLY like buying wine in a supemarket" Are you really that stupid. These brave men and women know exactly what they are doing and they all made the decision to join. I for one think the soldiers of today are truly the greatest generation. They know that the enemy they fight is barbaric and with no regard for human life, unlike enemies of past wars. At least in past wars there was a chance if you were captured you would be treated humanely, now you get your head cut off. And yet the best of our youth still continue to join, and re-enlist, to fight against this horror

quote:

Originally posted by BigRonW:
Is ASKING people really an efficient (or accurate) way to find out what made them join? My mind goes immediately to an experiment carried out in England by the University of Aston. On alternate days, the played as "piped music" either accordion music, or an "oompah band". Then they measured how much German and French wine got sold on those days. When the accordion music played, French wine was the best seller, when it was the Blasband, German wine sold best. Customers who had bought wine stated categorically that their decision had NOT been influenced by the music. Sure it didn't. Sales switched from 70% to 30% on alternate days purely randomly? We have a saying here in the UK - "Tell that to the Marines" (indicating derision and disbelief.)

The USA keeps records of where recruits come from a closely guarded secret (there seems no logic to do so, but that's the military!) However they don't keep the origins of casualties secret: they actually publish them! And there are academics who have made it their task to enumerate the origin of ALL casualties from Iraq. It seems a fair assumption that casualties are random - so we have a picture of where a randomly selected proportion of the USMC comes from. And their origins are NOT random. They're far more likely to come either from an area right next to a military base, or from a small town you've never heard of in the midwest than from one of the great cities (Boston, New York, LA) Places where "The Future" for most people is either working for the town factory (before it gets closed down by Chinese competition) or leaving to look for something better somewhere else. Or they're following a family member into the service - which is commoner in the USA than most other countries.

Enlisting is EXACTLY like buying wine in a supemarket. You do it first... then when you get home and your partner asks "Why that one?" you find a reason why. And asking people why they bought French or German wine is just as unlikely to get you a sensible answer: they don't know - but they're not goijg to admit that to YOU.

quote:

Originally posted by HAVOK14:

Have you ever thought that maybe because the people who join the military take months or even years sometimes to decide that they would come up with a reason to justify it to themselves as well as to others.

Majority of recruits come from those areas because that is where patriotic feelings run high unlike large cities with the majority being very liberal.

quote:

Ltmousseman
Basic Training

Posted Fri 16 November 2007 05:23 AM Hide Post
BigRon, what the heck are you talking about, "Enlisting is EXACTLY like buying wine in a supemarket" Are you really that stupid. These brave men and women know exactly what they are doing and they all made the decision to join. I for one think the soldiers of today are truly the greatest generation. They know that the enemy they fight is barbaric and with no regard for human life, unlike enemies of past wars. At least in past wars there was a chance if you were captured you would be treated humanely, now you get your head cut off. And yet the best of our youth still continue to join, and re-enlist, to fight against this horror

quote:

Originally posted by FireflyJMS2:

im pretty sure 95% of the people who join know why they joined. even if it wasnt strictly for service. they joined for the money or just to have job security, whatever it is. they know why. sadly i know of one guy who joined in about 2 weeks and didnt even tell his family. im not sure he knows why he joined and thats why hes trying to get out only 8 months into it. he also just got married to a girl he only knew for 2 months and they already hate each other and want to seperate. i think he has commitment issues

quote:

Originally posted by BigRonW:

quote:

Originally posted by HAVOK14:

Have you ever thought that maybe because the people who join the military take months or even years sometimes to decide that they would come up with a reason to justify it to themselves as well as to others.

Majority of recruits come from those areas because that is where patriotic feelings run high unlike large cities with the majority being very liberal.

To make that last statement, you have to impose a VERY tightly selective definition on the word "Patriotic". Like believing that it's more "patriotic" to cover up Abu Ghraib or My-Lai than to expose them. I certainly remember why I enlisted. It was to oppose all the things I despised about the USSR - the gulags, the corruption in government, the "flexibility" of the legal system, the brainwashed populace.... but years later, the USSR having been defeated, the same habits seem to have been picked up by the USA. In my book, that makes the "Liberals" more patriotic than the "paint over the cracks and maybe nobody will notice" flag-wavers. I've noticed a certain confusion on these forums - there seem to be a LOT of American servicemen who think they swore allegiance to the president. That's what we Brits do - swear allegiance to the head of state. Americans swear allegiance to the constitution - and so for that matter does the president himself. It's a small point, but it means that if the holder of the office of president is shown to be attempting to circumvent the constitution (the one you swore to protect, remember?) then he's THE ENEMY, and it's your sworn and patriotic duty to oppose him, by force of arms if neccessary.

I think you have "Patriotism" confused with "Flag waving". There's a BIG difference.

quote:

Originally posted by BigRonW:

quote:

Originally posted by HAVOK14:

Have you ever thought that maybe because the people who join the military take months or even years sometimes to decide that they would come up with a reason to justify it to themselves as well as to others.

Majority of recruits come from those areas because that is where patriotic feelings run high unlike large cities with the majority being very liberal.

To make that last statement, you have to impose a VERY tightly selective definition on the word "Patriotic". Like believing that it's more "patriotic" to cover up Abu Ghraib or My-Lai than to expose them. I certainly remember why I enlisted. It was to oppose all the things I despised about the USSR - the gulags, the corruption in government, the "flexibility" of the legal system, the brainwashed populace.... but years later, the USSR having been defeated, the same habits seem to have been picked up by the USA. In my book, that makes the "Liberals" more patriotic than the "paint over the cracks and maybe nobody will notice" flag-wavers. I've noticed a certain confusion on these forums - there seem to be a LOT of American servicemen who think they swore allegiance to the president. That's what we Brits do - swear allegiance to the head of state. Americans swear allegiance to the constitution - and so for that matter does the president himself. It's a small point, but it means that if the holder of the office of president is shown to be attempting to circumvent the constitution (the one you swore to protect, remember?) then he's THE ENEMY, and it's your sworn and patriotic duty to oppose him, by force of arms if neccessary.

I think you have "Patriotism" confused with "Flag waving". There's a BIG difference.