JoshuaFox comments on Why officers vs. enlisted? - Less Wrong

13 Post author: JoshuaFox 30 October 2013 08:14PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (143)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JoshuaFox 01 November 2013 07:01:03AM 0 points [-]

lost purpose

Yes, this is one of the strongest candidates for an answer. Still, I think that organizations do change, sometimes keeping historical forms as an archaism.

I can easily imagine a counterfactual historicla shift where sergeants' social status rises and lieutenants' social status falls, to the point that de facto the strong boundary between officers and non-officers disappears.

So, just explaining the two-ladder system as a historical remnant doesn't quite answer it..

Comment author: shminux 01 November 2013 02:44:12PM -1 points [-]

Still, I think that organizations do change, sometimes keeping historical forms as an archaism.

That's not a "still", it's exactly what I meant. After the original ladders take root, it is much harder to reform the whole system than to adapt it to the changing circumstances.

I can easily imagine a counterfactual historicla shift where sergeants' social status rises and lieutenants' social status falls, to the point that de facto the strong boundary between officers and non-officers disappears.

I would like to see such ladder inversion examples. While it is true that a new lieutenant has to learn from his or hers sergeant before really talking command, there is still a difference in the social status and education between them.