OT-VA
Member
This was an amazing book. Great historian. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674737686
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
What are you reading?
- Thread starter Recovering LSO
- Start date
So... What's the book? What's it about? Why is it so good?
Can we at least get a description rather than a link to a book site that looks like some Harvard professor makes his students
Come on new guy, suck less!
(The only reason I'm helping you is because I too am a CNU alumni)
OT-VA
Member
Sure, I'll give it hack.
Brian Linn is a historian from Texas A&M, and he's written quite extensively on questions of RMA and how the structure, command/control, and doctrine of the US Army shifted after the Second World War and the Korean War. Really, Elvis has little to nothing to do with the actual narrative of the book, though he was drafted in 1958. Rather, Linn focuses on the nuances of the trimmed down Pentomic units of Eisenhower's "New Look" budget cut, the proposed weapon systems the infantry would be equipped with, and ultimately the failures of such ideas for "revolutionary change in warfare," and the preparatory steps taken for readiness. Many of the weapons systems such as the Davy Crockett, a crew fired atomic weapon, were failures, and the Army seemed to fall behind relative to the Navy and Air Force.
The book is worth a read because it explores an era of US military history that is not written about as much (time between Korea and Vietnam). Moreover, and this might sound a bit abstract (perhaps not what Linn was getting at), I think it is worthwhile to note the larger questions raised by silver bullet attempts at trying to revolutionize force capability to plan for all tactical contingencies. Something that Clausewitz gets at quite often.
Anyway, I think Linn does a good job of showing how organizational change cannot account for many of the "unknown unknowns" in the tactical space.
Nice recovery.
prestige worldwide
New Member
Thought this was a pretty sweet thread, so I wanted to contribute.
This may have been mentioned already, but I still highly recommend Endurance by Alfred Lansing, which covers the journey of explorer Ernest Shackleton and his crew through the South Pole.
The book includes detailed journal entries from the crew. The story also makes you appreciate how much an individual can persevere through the harshest conditions imaginable.
This may have been mentioned already, but I still highly recommend Endurance by Alfred Lansing, which covers the journey of explorer Ernest Shackleton and his crew through the South Pole.
The book includes detailed journal entries from the crew. The story also makes you appreciate how much an individual can persevere through the harshest conditions imaginable.
Currently in the middle of 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos by Dr. Jordan Peterson. He's a clinical psychologist and genius in general. He explains the importance and reasoning behind the most ancient human traditions and actions. He really just explains things about the world that makes you see it in a totally different form. I love it so far and it's definitely not a dry read as you'd think a book by a psychologist would be. https://jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-for-life/
Judge Q
Judging You
Is he that Canadian prof who was in the media s-show because he refused to call a tranny in his class by their chosen gender or something like that?
Haha that is exactly who it is.
OT-VA
Member
It's awesome. What do you think of his talks?
You kids are gonna rot your. ain with that shit. You don't need an alt-right Kermit the frog Canadian shrink to tell you to make your bed, I hope. Stay away from that pseudo-scientific self help garbage.
I'd you want a more scholarly takedown of JBP's huckster trash than I can provide, they're available all over, but start here:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201802/jordan-peterson-s-flimsy-philosophy-life
https://newrepublic.com/article/148473/jordan-petersons-tired-old-myths
https://www.viewpointmag.com/2018/01/23/postmodernism-not-take-place-jordan-petersons-12-rules-life/
https://news.vice.com/en_ca/article/evmn9p/jordan-peterson-is-canadas-most-infamous-intellectual
I'd you want a more scholarly takedown of JBP's huckster trash than I can provide, they're available all over, but start here:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201802/jordan-peterson-s-flimsy-philosophy-life
https://newrepublic.com/article/148473/jordan-petersons-tired-old-myths
https://www.viewpointmag.com/2018/01/23/postmodernism-not-take-place-jordan-petersons-12-rules-life/
https://news.vice.com/en_ca/article/evmn9p/jordan-peterson-is-canadas-most-infamous-intellectual
I think you have to notice the different between Peterson the social scientist and Peterson the attempted philosopher.
Peterson is a very good social scientist. None of what he has produced in that realm are psuedo-scientific.
What your articles discuss are opinions on Peterson's philosophical beliefs. Everyone has differences in that realm. Labelling differences as a "takedown" makes it seem like you have a personal issue with his beliefs.
No. He's not. He's not even notable for his science in his extremely controversial field (social psychology) which is currently undergoing a potentially existential replication crisis.
Scientists are typically well-known and respected for their science. His research is extremely blah and run of the mill.
He's been published in the APA a handful of times. That would allow me to believe he's somewhat notable in the field.
Are you saying that social sciences like certain fields of Psychology are not based in research? Or are you saying that Peterson does no research?
No, that isn't how science works. The importance of a study isn't based on how much acclaim it gains. Thinking like this led to the replication crisis you mentioned previously. Science that reaffirms the status quote is just as important as a study that changes. Unfortunately, reaffirmation doesn't get all the headlines. Scientists who chased acclaim created weak experiments with the thought in mind to find "specific" results. That's why many studies have been replicated with differing results.
I'll play along though. This study, Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Has been cited in a little over 900 other studies.
Wifey is working on her PhD in a sociology discipline-
Me: "Wifey, is Peterson a good source?"
Wifey: "Are you the type of person who would take advice from a TV/Hollywood doctor?"
Me: "If I were to say yes..."
Wifey: "He's about as good as Jenny McCarthy; and we're worried about smallpox again, so there's that"
Me: "Noted"
I'm not a really smart guy, but much much smarter people than I tell me all the time that this dude is a sham.
Me: "Wifey, is Peterson a good source?"
Wifey: "Are you the type of person who would take advice from a TV/Hollywood doctor?"
Me: "If I were to say yes..."
Wifey: "He's about as good as Jenny McCarthy; and we're worried about smallpox again, so there's that"
Me: "Noted"
I'm not a really smart guy, but much much smarter people than I tell me all the time that this dude is a sham.
Jordan Peterson Cited by Maybe your wife is right, but all the studies this guy is cited in doesn't equal sham, imo. Like I mentioned earlier, Plhlosopher Peterson gets it wrong often. Social Psych Peterson is pretty good.