How did they accomplish the rarest of military feats?
The people, who made up Israel and considered for centuries to be non fighters, were surrounded on three sides and facing a far superior enemy “accomplished the rarest of military featsâ€, they shattered the enemy forces “within a given time and with an absence of blunderâ€.
Fighting that began in May of 1948 ended in January 1949 when an armistice was signed. The IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) realized that they had “won a state but not the peaceâ€.
The major surprise was the performance of the “espresso†generation; given this name because they were considered to have discarded the traditional Jewish ideals while lazing about drinking espresso in the local cafes. It was this generation that, when challenged and well led, performed this “rarest of military featsâ€.
From what I have read there is a small (35%) absolute difference in the intellectual potential between extremes in normal humans. When we examine specific individuals we can detect a gigantic difference (1000%?) in accomplishment. When we compare Winston Churchill with the others we see this difference and when we compare the Israeli nation in this situation with other nations we see this difference.
The difference is illuminated not only when comparing one person with another or one nation with another but it is startling in the difference in accomplishment of humans in matters of technology versus matters of ‘reasoning together’.
We live in two very different worlds; a world of technical and technological order and clarity, and a world of personal and social disorder and confusion. We are increasingly able to solve problems in one domain and increasingly endangered by our inability to solve problems in the other.
Science solves puzzles. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.
Science uses instrumental rationality to solve puzzles. Instrumental rationality is a systematic process for reflecting upon the best action to take to reach an established end. The obvious question becomes ‘what mode of rationality is available for determining ends?’ Instrumental rationality appears to be of little use in determining such matters as “good†and “rightâ€.
There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems. The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life†are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved using deductive and inductive reasoning.
In summary:
Humans differ greatly in achievement even though potential as measured by intellectual capacity is small.
Humans perform grandly in matters of technology but are wimps in performance in matters communication and reasoning together.
I find this to be a puzzlement? Do you have any answers?
Quotes from Practicing History by Barbara Tuchman
How did they accomplish the rarest of military feats?
How did they accomplish the rarest of military feats?
posted by coberst
How did they accomplish the rarest of military feats?
The people, who made up Israel and considered for centuries to be non fighters, were surrounded on three sides and facing a far superior enemy “accomplished the rarest of military featsâ€, they shattered the enemy forces “within a given time and with an absence of blunderâ€.
Fighting that began in May of 1948 ended in January 1949 when an armistice was signed. The IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) realized that they had “won a state but not the peaceâ€.
Not that rare you need to read a bit more history it's full of examples where an- on the face of it- weaker force facing apparently overwhelming odds shattered their enemy.
There was this little thing called ww2 for example that meant a surprising number of the people had been soldiers. The arab nations didn't have the same level of sheer expertise and experience in combat as the israelis nor did they work with each other.
It wasn't just in Israel-many of the older generation in germany and britain thought the younger generation didn't have what it took to go to war like they did in ww1.
How did they accomplish the rarest of military feats?
The people, who made up Israel and considered for centuries to be non fighters, were surrounded on three sides and facing a far superior enemy “accomplished the rarest of military featsâ€, they shattered the enemy forces “within a given time and with an absence of blunderâ€.
Fighting that began in May of 1948 ended in January 1949 when an armistice was signed. The IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) realized that they had “won a state but not the peaceâ€.
Not that rare you need to read a bit more history it's full of examples where an- on the face of it- weaker force facing apparently overwhelming odds shattered their enemy.
There was this little thing called ww2 for example that meant a surprising number of the people had been soldiers. The arab nations didn't have the same level of sheer expertise and experience in combat as the israelis nor did they work with each other.
It wasn't just in Israel-many of the older generation in germany and britain thought the younger generation didn't have what it took to go to war like they did in ww1.
How did they accomplish the rarest of military feats?
An interesting one, in terms of Israel, I think GMC's post is pertinent as many of the Israelis who fought would have been involved in the fighting in Europe in the 1939-45 period and would obviously have been battle hardened and would have had distinct advantages in terms of the experience with modern weaponry and tactics vs their arab opponents, who had the complacency of those who think their victory is assured to further hamper their strategic or tactical abilities.
In terms of the second one, I tend to agree that the reason why science and technological development have been so staggeringly sucessful over the past couple of centuries, is that science sticks to things that are amenable to be being worked on using the scientific method, these are of course the physical problems and intricacies of the material universe, not the emotion or spiritual problems of the human condition; in fact science has probably made some of them worse by removing some of the comforting old certainties that people use to fall back on to cope.
I am not sure there is an answer to the human condition really, not in this life, the best you can do is recognize that it exists and try and factor it into how you deal with problems of real life. People's motivations and their desires and their needs are not always rational, and often mutually exclusive, we are not going to change unless we try to alter ourselves as a species, and that would be unwise in the extreme. So we are just going to have to muddle through as we are, and if we destroy ourselves, then I guess nature will put it down to another dead end in the evolutionary game and move on, as it always does. Probably the most likely outcome really, species don't last forever, and we are no exception.
In terms of the second one, I tend to agree that the reason why science and technological development have been so staggeringly sucessful over the past couple of centuries, is that science sticks to things that are amenable to be being worked on using the scientific method, these are of course the physical problems and intricacies of the material universe, not the emotion or spiritual problems of the human condition; in fact science has probably made some of them worse by removing some of the comforting old certainties that people use to fall back on to cope.
I am not sure there is an answer to the human condition really, not in this life, the best you can do is recognize that it exists and try and factor it into how you deal with problems of real life. People's motivations and their desires and their needs are not always rational, and often mutually exclusive, we are not going to change unless we try to alter ourselves as a species, and that would be unwise in the extreme. So we are just going to have to muddle through as we are, and if we destroy ourselves, then I guess nature will put it down to another dead end in the evolutionary game and move on, as it always does. Probably the most likely outcome really, species don't last forever, and we are no exception.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
How did they accomplish the rarest of military feats?
coberst;1197910 wrote:
In summary:
Humans differ greatly in achievement even though potential as measured by intellectual capacity is small.
Humans perform grandly in matters of technology but are wimps in performance in matters communication and reasoning together.
I find this to be a puzzlement? Do you have any answers?
Quotes from Practicing History by Barbara Tuchman
If the whole lot had been reduced to the summary, it would be easier to take seriously and reply to. However, the only thing I can think of in context is that BT either has an ulterior motive; or is grossly over-simplifying history; or has the smaller measure of either intellectual capacity/matters of reasoning (or both). Sorry.
In summary:
Humans differ greatly in achievement even though potential as measured by intellectual capacity is small.
Humans perform grandly in matters of technology but are wimps in performance in matters communication and reasoning together.
I find this to be a puzzlement? Do you have any answers?
Quotes from Practicing History by Barbara Tuchman
If the whole lot had been reduced to the summary, it would be easier to take seriously and reply to. However, the only thing I can think of in context is that BT either has an ulterior motive; or is grossly over-simplifying history; or has the smaller measure of either intellectual capacity/matters of reasoning (or both). Sorry.