Not for the first time, someone on LW links a West Hunter page that isn't content to make a reasonable point, but has to exaggerate that point and present it with sneering. Cochran's post is short, but to make it even shorter: [...] It's true that Marshall's claim about WWII soldiers isn't trustworthy. (I haven't spent enough time with the literature to go further and confirm the claim's made-up bullshit vapour. But it wouldn't surprise me.) Unfortunately Cochran has to have his cherry on top; he writes off not only Marshall but the general idea of soldiers, and people in general, finding it hard to kill other people. Now, I first read about that idea, and about Marshall's dodgy WWII work, in (I'm fairly sure) Randall Collins's Violence: A Micro-Sociological Theory, which quotes Marshall at length and cites him for various (alleged) results, among them the WWII statistic. According to Collins, the famous statistic "has been controversial", though he also writes "Marshall is not presenting a statistical argument, but was summarizing his judgment". That's not really good enough. But Collins doesn't rely exclusively on Marshall — the chapter where Collins goes on & on about Marshall cites many other sources which contradict Cochran's sarcasm & scepticism. They include five citations to affirm that a nontrivial number of soldiers soil themselves in battle, with one of those five mentioning soldiers trying to hide on the ground or under "blankets or sleeping bags"; Marshall's predecessor Colonel Charles Ardant du Picq, who gave "questionnaires to French army officers in the 1860s, who reported a tendency for soldiers to fire wildly in the air"; John Keegan's Face of Battle, which reveals that "eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century massed firing formations" often included NCOs pressing their swords against soldiers' backs "to force them to hold their position"; Paddy Griffith on a "pervasiveness of fear and firing incompetence" in the US Civil War; Richard Holmes

That is a really clever mixup of different argumentation modes. That being said, Mr. Cochran strangling one of his opponents would still be only weak evidence that it is not so difficult for humans to psych themselves up to kill another human. First of all, he hasn't actually done it (I presume). Secondly, we know it's difficult, not impossible. Thirdly, we know there are sociopaths and psychopaths who can do this without much thought, as well as perhaps normal people who have become desensitized to killing. Fortunately these are a small percentage of the populace. There is, in fact, a large amount of research that has gone into studying the minds of people who kill: in wartime, in criminal activity, in law enforcement, and so forth; and there is a strong consensus that for most people intentional killing is hard. For example, [...] -- William S. Frisbee, The Psychology of Killing If you want a more detailed look at this, including lots of references to the original Defense Department research, there are a number of good books by army officers including On Killing by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman. One of the originals is Men Against Fire by World War I Officer S. L. A Marshall. Bruce Siddle's work, more focused on law enforcement, is also worth a look. E.g. Sharpening the Warrior's Edge. None of these are perfect or irrefutable evidence. For instance, the research I'm aware focuses primarily on U.S. and British troops and police officers. It's certainly possible that this is culturally conditioned and the results might be different elsewhere. However, I've yet to see any strong critiques of the general consensus about the difficulty of killing in war. The best evidence we have is that killing is in fact difficult for most people, most of the time, even in war.