= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Are they extremely competent as a result of having gone through the training programs for these extremely elite branches, or do the extremely elite branches select for extreme competence?
Also, what is generalized "competence"?
Both. Let me explain using a concrete example of how it happens using the elites from my own field, military computer security.
First, a problem is pointed out. Usually because an adversary pearl harbors something (like a base network goes down.). A commander (usually general level, this is really all they do besides give speeches) picks someone recommended by their staff and their staff's friends. The person picked is usually one of the few very competent people in the military. This person is given absolute dictator-level power and responsibility over the subject area wherever it does not interact with subject areas controlled by a higher-ranking person.
This person's first task is to pick people to make a training program for more people in the field (the 'single point of failure' policy). They pick their friends, who are also likely among the few very competent people, and they get together and actually consult with training experts, have complete authority to make training programs (SERE training includes torturing/beating people and forcing them to eat live animal parts to prepare them for being captured and living in the wild, as an example.)
The person's second task is to requisition people for the field as a 'special duty.' In order to be eligible for special duties you always require basic competence (if your pt scores are bad or you have any poor marks on your record, no go), but you can also require advanced competence (pararescue has a swim test, cybersecurity requires S+ and is moving toward CISSP certifications.)
The third task is to remove the threat using the people and the training program, and they are personally responsible and accountable for making sure the threat is removed. There are no excuses, not even reasonable ones like 'no human being knew that was possible!' or 'there is not enough money in the world to solve this.' The commander comes up with an effective, efficient way of addressing the threat, or they are removed from command.
So, you have training programs which are effective at improving competence (domain-specific competence), and you have personnel entering them who already display a modicum of this DScompetence and a basic level of generalized competence (they have followed the basic military rules like pt, get to work on time, do what you're trained to do, don't break the law.). You get your pick of the applicants, including for training and the people who make regulations.
Over time this urgency fades and you're left with enforcing the (however outdated) legacy of those effective people from whenever the last pearl harbor incident was.
In response to
Military Rationalities and Irrationalities
Double Edged: Strict Heirarchy. More 'qualified' individuals give orders to others and such orders must be followed. This frees subordinates to expend mental function on how to carry out orders, and frees superiors to watch the big picture. Unfortunately promotion is not based on ability to convert a bigger picture into effective orders, and difficulties in coming up with good promotion criteria lead to it becoming largely a gerontocracy and promotion of highly unqualified technical experts out of areas of their domain-specific expertise.
I'd be interested to see this in Discussion.
I'm going the opposite way: Paying more attention to non-formulaic outfits, after years of {{varying only within one or two very circumscribed formulas, or even wearing one of exactly the same few set outfits for months--or more--at a time}}. So far it's interesting figuring things out, but it's increasing wardrobe load, and if I continue expanding my collection, it could become substantially more expensive than what I was doing before.
The dialectic outside view suggests I'll end up settling down a bit and going back to a more repetitive approach, but with a greater number of variables (e.g. introducing variables for level of formality, weather, audience, tone-fancied-on-given-day, etc.) and items from which to choose.
Military Rationalities and Irrationalities
In response to the question
"Does anyone happen to know of reliable ways for increasing one's supply of executive function, by the way? I seem to run out of it very quickly in general."
(Kaj_Solata)
I posted that my military experience seems effectively designed to increase executive function. Some examples of this from myself and metastable are
Uniforms- not having to think about your wardrobe, ever, saves a lot of time, mental effort, and money. Steve Jobs and President Obama are known for also using uniforms specifically for this purpose.
PT- Daily, routinized exercise. Done in a way that very few people are deciding what comes next.
-Maximum use of daylight hours
Med Group and Force Support-Minimized high-risk projects outside of workplace (paternalistic health care, insurance, and in many cases, housing and continuing education.)
After a moment's thought it occurred to me that there are some double-edged swords in Military Rationality as well, some of which lead to classic jokes like 'Military Intelligence is an oxymoron.'
Regulations- A select few 'experts' create policies which everyone else is required to follow at all times. Unfortunately these experts are never (never ever) encouraged to consider knock-on effects. Ugh.
Anybody else have insights on the military they want to share here? I feel a couple of good posts on increasing executive function might come out of a discussion on the rationalities and irrationalities of the armed forces.
Okay, now that does sound like a useful term.
Does anyone happen to know of reliable ways for increasing one's supply of executive function, by the way? I seem to run out of it very quickly in general.
After joining the military, where executive function on demand is sort of the meta-goal of most training exercises, i found that having a set wardrobe actually saves a great deal of mental effort. You just don't realize how much time you spend worrying about clothes until you have a book which literally has all the answers and can't be deviated from. I know that this was also a thing that Steve Jobs did- one 'uniform' for life. President Obama apparently does it as well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/10/05/steve-jobs-always-dressed-exactly-the-same-heres-who-else-does/
There are a number of other things i've learned for this which are maybe worth writing up as a separate post. Not sure if that's within the purview of LW though.
Yes, I do have particular books, classes, youtube videos, lectures, exercises, and other resources. It is highly dependent on your particular vocal tendencies, so your mileage will vary for all of them.
But just as i don't feel comfortable posting physical fitness advice due to the above issues, i don't feel inclined to share the techniques which worked well for me or have worked for my students without providing the support to ensure you gain maximum benefit from them. So I will simply state some intriguing names of techniques and remain available to answer questions from your own journey, instead of listing techniques which will be mostly useless and are easily disproven in the majority of circumstances.
That being said, here are a couple of links.
Diaphragm Breathing/Speaking: http://www.roleplayingtips.com/readissue.php?number=3
Khargyraa Techniques: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCom9ZCJAmE
The best tip for the Khargyraa stuff is just to watch that video and maybe this one and then wing it for a while, trying to get the sound right. If you manage it, try just saying some stuff in a normal voice and note the difference. It is immediate and surprising.
This link is nice because the guy is such an amateur! He clearly learned, like, one technique (probably from youtube) and then posted his immediate results on youtube, so it's a good starting point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X54KBdi5_xg
That sounds like very useful advice. Do you have some suggestions for where to start learning this? E.g. particular books, classes, or Youtube videos?
Yes, I do have particular books, classes, youtube videos, lectures, exercises, and other resources. It is highly dependent on your particular vocal tendencies, so your mileage will vary for all of them.
But just as i don't feel comfortable posting physical fitness advice due to the above issues, i don't feel inclined to share the techniques which worked well for me or have worked for my students without providing the support to ensure you gain maximum benefit from them. So I will simply state some intriguing names of techniques and remain available to answer questions from your own journey, instead of listing techniques which will be mostly useless and are easily disproven in the majority of circumstances.
I know how to project voice, and I do it when singing all the time, but I always forget to do that in normal conversations.
@army 1987, it is the difference between knowing how to do push ups well, and run well, and do situps, and being strong in the sense that a blacksmith is strong. One is a sort of ability to perform a bounded activity, the other comes from constant use of the muscles in question over time. When you've done the right exercises, you don't have to remember, you're just strong and you have a life which makes you stronger every day.
How do you guys feel about sharing hacks to increase your status, given that status can be a bit of a zero-sum game? I think I may have identified a nootropic that has the effect of making one feel and act higher status, but I'm not sure I want to just tell the entire world about it, given the positional nature of status.
Edit: see here for more.
I feel great about it. Let the users decide for themselves.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Also, there's often value to having people available to work, over and above the value of having them working right this moment. Firing people the first day there's no work for them to do (or even the first week, or the first month) isn't necessarily optimal.
So even if they had control over hiring and firing, they wouldn't necessarily want to change anything. In other words, it might be a legitimate fixed cost, not just something being treated as one by a bureaucratic mind.
Of course, it would be still better to use people maximally efficiently once they're hired.
Agreed, and to expand i would say that the level of capital devoted to a task is how much it actually needs to be done. Cheap, basic supplies are for tasks which are really not important and if they were, they could be done by people other than military personnel more cheaply. A few token mops just shows that you need something to give the E-2s or their morale goes in the shitter. Mission-essential bases have janitorial contractors.
I'm not sure it would be better to use people maximally efficiently once they're hired! That is an interesting question. Personally i would rather have them idle and available to be tasked with important missions that may come up than 'busy' all the time for the sake of busyness, which is how 'use people maximally efficiently because we have them' tend to play out.