I gotta call BS on this stat...what do you guys think?

[Complication]

It's "possible" that SLAM did not make up the numbers, as you say, but it defies logic and good practices to put credibility into his findings, either.

Unfortunately, Grossman seems to assert that they are no longer SLAM's numbers but the numbers of SLAM and all those who have confirmed his numbers in other conflicts.

So while it's nice and easy to discredit SLAM, what about everyone else that have confirmed his findings through entirely different studies? And while I am no psychologist, I'm wary of going about claiming psychologists fundamentally misread human nature.

Grossman also talks about kids and says that their "violence" is posturing (a developing form of posturing that often doesn't know where the boundaries are). He argues that when one child gets hurt and starts crying the other stops, aware he's done something wrong. Does that sound like your kids? Or do they go beating each other long after the tears and screams have begun?

Saying you know better about human nature in combat than someone whose made it his life's work to study because you've got kids is like saying "Anyone who has walked across a large field knows the earth is flat. I don't need satellites to tell me something I know is wrong."

I'm happy to conceded that SLAM and all those who agree with him might be wrong. I'm just looking for a study to back that counter-argument up instead of "I think" or "it defies logic."

[120mm]

Unfortunately, Grossman seems to assert that they are no longer SLAM's numbers but the numbers of SLAM and all those who have confirmed his numbers in other conflicts.

Based on what numbers, in what other conflicts? Prior to WWII there were no studies. I suggest that Grossman and others are feeding a "data loop" here.

So while it's nice and easy to discredit SLAM, what about everyone else that have confirmed his findings through entirely different studies?

See above

And while I am no psychologist, I'm wary of going about claiming psychologists fundamentally misread human nature.

I'll play this game: Psychologists also operate in a closed data loop. Just look at how many psychologists believe in the medical model of criminal behavior. A model that is demonstrably false. Also remember, psychologists like to equate gun ownership with all sorts of negative issues, not out of scientific interest, but in order to support their political beliefs

Grossman also talks about kids and says that their "violence" is posturing (a developing form of posturing that often doesn't know where the boundaries are). He argues that when one child gets hurt and starts crying the other stops, aware he's done something wrong. Does that sound like your kids? Or do they go beating each other long after the tears and screams have begun?

Saying you know better about human nature in combat than someone whose made it his life's work to study because you've got kids is like saying "Anyone who has walked across a large field knows the earth is flat. I don't need satellites to tell me something I know is wrong."

I'm happy to conceded that SLAM and all those who agree with him might be wrong. I'm just looking for a study to back that counter-argument up instead of "I think" or "it defies logic."

I am just saying SLAM has no proof to support his position. To defend SLAM defies logic. It is possible SLAM is correct.

Remember, Grossman is just an Army Officer who decided he needs to sell something after retirement. I HAVE studied violence, both near and far, as my life's work.

Right now you are in "sock puppet" mode, defending something you heard. I doubt I can get through to you, so for the others, it is much more likely that violence, and killing is psycho-sexual in nature. I direct you to an interesting fellow named J.M.G. Van Der Dennen. More later when I can get back to this machine

[Complication]

Remember, Grossman is just an Army Officer who decided he needs to sell something after retirement. I HAVE studied violence, both near and far, as my life's work.

Right now you are in "sock puppet" mode, defending something you heard. I doubt I can get through to you, so for the others, it is much more likely that violence, and killing is psycho-sexual in nature.

Saying that Grossman is "just an Army Officer who decided he needs to sell something after retirement" is like saying a SEAL is someone who couldn't cut it in the regular Navy and had to find a specific unit where he might actually be useful. Have you at least looked at his credentials?

Look, I don't have any credentials in the area. So me spouting off my own personal opinions is about as useful as it would be accurate--that is to say, not at all. Instead, I decided to try to contribute to the discussion by referencing one of the authorities on the subject (which I've already admitted is a sample size of one). If that makes me a sock puppet, then okay.

I haven't read anything by Van Der Dennen, but now that we've got a name besides Grossman, maybe the discussion can actually progress. What I was objecting to was the presumption that, in a subject which necessarily revolves around academic and statistical analysis, unqualified personal opinions are on par with known authorities.

Apparently you, just like Grossman have studied violence. Great, maybe you can contribute to the discussion here. But in what capacity? What is your experience? What and where have you studied? If we don't know that, then you're just another guy on the internet with an opinion. There are scientists that agree with global warming and those who don't. Who is right? I don't know, but it sure as hell isn't the guy scratching his head on his back porch in the middle of winter saying, "Boy, it sure don't feel warm."

Just because Grossman said it doesn't mean it's right. But just because you think he's wrong doesn't make it so, either. I'm just looking for a discussion based on realities and not opinions.

Maybe read this: http://tacticalyellowvisor.net/14401/73895.html

[120mm]

Saying that Grossman is "just an Army Officer who decided he needs to sell something after retirement" is like saying a SEAL is someone who couldn't cut it in the regular Navy and had to find a specific unit where he might actually be useful. Have you at least looked at his credentials?

Look, I don't have any credentials in the area. So me spouting off my own personal opinions is about as useful as it would be accurate--that is to say, not at all. Instead, I decided to try to contribute to the discussion by referencing one of the authorities on the subject (which I've already admitted is a sample size of one). If that makes me a sock puppet, then okay.

I haven't read anything by Van Der Dennen, but now that we've got a name besides Grossman, maybe the discussion can actually progress. What I was objecting to was the presumption that, in a subject which necessarily revolves around academic and statistical analysis, unqualified personal opinions are on par with known authorities.

Apparently you, just like Grossman have studied violence. Great, maybe you can contribute to the discussion here. But in what capacity? What is your experience? What and where have you studied? If we don't know that, then you're just another guy on the internet with an opinion. There are scientists that agree with global warming and those who don't. Who is right? I don't know, but it sure as hell isn't the guy scratching his head on his back porch in the middle of winter saying, "Boy, it sure don't feel warm."

Just because Grossman said it doesn't mean it's right. But just because you think he's wrong doesn't make it so, either. I'm just looking for a discussion based on realities and not opinions.

Maybe read this: http://tacticalyellowvisor.net/14401/73895.html

Ha! I was going to link the same thing to you.

What I believe or not is irrelevant to my central point: SLAM had zero data, outside of SLAM's own memories, to support his supposition about weapon firing. In fact, no living witness to his studies admits, when questioned, to ever hearing SLAM even ask the question in his 400 - 600 interviews, he claims to have made. Therefore, continuing to quote SLAM, and saying "many other studies support him" without indicating which studies and when, is not a very strong position to take.

I don't necessarily disagree completely with Grossman; my disagreement is a matter of degree. But, unfortunately, hurriedly typing a quick response after a 5 mile run in Taji, before going back to work is not conducive to communicating the idea that you have nuanced reservations about Grossman's work.

And short of boring the living hell out of everyone else on M4C, I believe this cat is thoroughly flat.

[Complication]

And short of boring the living hell out of everyone else on M4C, I believe this cat is thoroughly flat.

I think on that point we can agree.