Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: What should the PT standard be?

  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13

    Default What should the PT standard be?

    In light of the major discussion on women in combat arms we have gotten into a rather deep discussion on the PT standard. In order to try and stay focused on the issues of women in combat arms (which PT does have some basis). I am starting this thread to dig deeper into the pt issue (which I believe is a create topic as all kinds of news things are coming up. Marines=CFT)?

    Some things that have come up:
    1. Kipping vs. Non-Kipping Pullups?
    2. Setting the standard to the lowest service member?
    3. Different standards for men and women?
    4. Different standards for different MOSs?
    5. Should the PT "standard" be tied directly to what you would expect of someone in combat?

    Many many more avenues along which to take this topic. I believe that the PT standard should be something that is functional fitness and would evaluate the abilities of a service member based off of the expectations that the average person would need to accomplish in combat. My thoughts....less than a mile run, some sort of pulling yourself up or climbing, lifting items from the ground over head, and just in general not with our PT standard but we need some sort of stretching /yoga/trigger point type therapy that can help reduce injury more from gear, long drives and just impact from PT and combat.

    Thoughts......

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    106

    Default Bottom line

    There must be a minimal fitness standard for all, because the enemy will not discriminate due to sex, age, or race. Everyone has the equal opportunity to be a liability to his or her team (resulting in death of others) if they're not in physical condition when and if that moment occurs.

    The current fitness standards for women may be appropriate if they do not go into combat arms; however, if women get into combat arms then they must meet appropriate fitness standards. I have worked with some exceptional women who are much more athletic than many of the males I worked with, to include some of those males in Special Forces, so if the desire and dedication is there, they are quite capable of meeting a much higher standard of PT than the standard specified by the Army now. However, most will never be as strong as men due to genetic differences.

    Getting to your point on what should we test? There are a lot of informed opinions out there, so I will only speak from the Army view. I never understood why the Army tests push ups instead of pull ups like the Marines. Pull ups develop a functional strength useful for climbing and grip strength which is useful for pulling a downed man, carrying a litter, etc. Even over 50 y/o I can still knock out over 80 push ups, but the correct response is so what? To what end? The only function push ups have is to pass the P.T. test.

    Sit ups are open to debate, but if you ever carried a heavy rucksack up a mountain you know it stresses your ab muscles. How to devleop and test the ab muscles is open to considerable debate.

    The two mile run is probably appropriate for the rear echelon Army, but for combat arms I'm not so sure. Years ago one of my Vietnam Vet team sgts gave us what we would call a functional PT test today based on his experiences with SOG in Vietnam. We had to be able to run one mile in less than 6:30 to test anerobic conditioning. The theory was you had to be able to break contact with the enemy, which met holding a fast pace for up to one mile to get to a PZ. We then did max pull ups and dips followed by a 500m swim. That evening we did a 7 mile run with a 35lb pack to simulate the weight of your LBE (I know we have a ton of body armor now), and carried a metal rod (approximately 12lbs) to simulate your rifle. This was to test your muscular endurance using the same muscles you would use during patrol. The test was a team event only, it didn't count for our actual fitness test, but much more importantly I think it contributed to our combat fitness level than the Army PT did. Of course I'm talking about the current Army PT test, the old 5 event PT test was better.

    I believe a PT test should measure functional fitness based on your projected mission. I would support a different PT program for those training to fight in Afghanistan than those going to Iraq for example, but we'll never get there because the big military likes its cookie cutter approach to life, even if it isn't appropriate, it is still the Army way. However, just as my Team Sergeant did you can go above and beyond. Good luck when trying to do so with some of the computer cupcakes entering the military today.

  3. #3
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    IMO the standards for the PT tests (all branches) are reasonable. The tests set standards that are easy to understand and easy to score. More importantly the way troops train needs to change. Taking platoons out every morning at 0600 to run five miles when they should be wearing their body armor, carrying a rifle and walking flights of stairs or carrying their buddy on their shoulders for 25, 50, 100 yards makes more sense. Working on DTs with gear on, sprints with gear on, push-ups, pull-ups, obstacle courses with gear on is the way to go.

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Replace the point grading system with a pass/fail grading system.

    For example, let's say it was decided that 40 pushups is the standard. Then 39 fails and 41 gets you nothing extra. Grade all other events in like manner.

    And make it a battle fitness test, not a physical fitness test.
    Last edited by Rifleman; 10-05-2010 at 03:26 AM.
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Global Scout View Post
    Sit ups are open to debate, but if you ever carried a heavy rucksack up a mountain you know it stresses your ab muscles. How to devleop and test the ab muscles is open to considerable debate.
    We just had a patrol sergeant return from the National Academy in Quantico. If you're not familiar with it, it's run by the FBI for the purpose of raising law enforcement standards and proficiency nationwide. The FBI has dropped situps in favor of a timed plank hold.

    Link: http://www.ab-core-and-stomach-exerc...r-stomach.html
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

  6. #6
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    A few thoughts:

    1. Don't go to a pass fail. We have a pass fail system up here, and there is no real encouragement to excel. The fitness level of our military has always been a bone of contention and the lack of any career incentives (like a point system) makes any attempt by the leadership to improve things to largely come to naught;

    2. We also have a PFT and a BFT. The PFT is the traditional push-ups/sit-ups/shuttle run. Unfortunately, the BFT is a 13km ruckmarch - this really doesn't have much to do with battle or fitness and only tests one's ability to grind their feet away for a couple hours. The new USMC CFT seems promising, but its demands for equipment make it hard to be a universally applicable fitness test;

    3. What is fitness? Crossfit, despite all its bumps and warts as a bit of a fitness cult, has probably the most convincing answer to the question. If anyone is interested, just type that question into google. Therefore, any real test of overall fitness is likely to be repetitive functional movements of varied intensity. As any veteran of a crossfit workout knows, there are plenty of ways to score and assess these workouts.

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Posted by Gute,

    IMO the standards for the PT tests (all branches) are reasonable. The tests set standards that are easy to understand and easy to score.
    It is fight I don't intend to win, but you addressed the issue I'm concerned with. The military is more concerned about standards that are easy to understand and score. It is more about the test than actually be fit for combat. Of course you addressed the remedy to that in the remainder of your post, which I concur with.

    Posted by Rifleman,
    We just had a patrol sergeant return from the National Academy in Quantico. If you're not familiar with it, it's run by the FBI for the purpose of raising law enforcement standards and proficiency nationwide. The FBI has dropped situps in favor of a timed plank hold.

    Link: http://www.ab-core-and-stomach-exerc...r-stomach.html
    I started doing planks about a year ago and my back feels much better, but I don't think planks develop the same functional muscles as sit ups? Also do isometric sit ups (get up in a 45 degree angle and hold a few seconds and repeat a few times). Another way to add some muscle to your mid section is by doing curls, just a couple of miller beers per night will pack on the mass

  8. #8
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gute View Post
    IMO the standards for the PT tests (all branches) are reasonable. The tests set standards that are easy to understand and easy to score. More importantly the way troops train needs to change. Taking platoons out every morning at 0600 to run five miles when they should be wearing their body armor, carrying a rifle and walking flights of stairs or carrying their buddy on their shoulders for 25, 50, 100 yards makes more sense. Working on DTs with gear on, sprints with gear on, push-ups, pull-ups, obstacle courses with gear on is the way to go.
    There is only this, or at least a variation of these tactical fitness problems, that we should be focusing on in terms of this sort of effort.

    Even in our current USMC CFT, we are not measuring standards in conditions anticipated in combat. I may excel at running 800m in boots and utes, but when am I ever going to do that in combat? When we perform swim qualification, there are a range of events that involve individual combat equipment, but neither our current PFT or CFT do that, and they will always fall short for that reason, in being the accurate judge, no matter how one performs on either.
    Last edited by jcustis; 10-05-2010 at 09:22 AM.

  9. #9
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    How one measures "fitness" and how one achieves "fitness" are two different things that we should be careful not to confuse.

    The measurement does need to be logically related to the type of fitness one desires though. For 26 years I would have to stop my normal workout 3 weeks prior to an APFT to stop training for fitness and prepare for the test.

    I do believe that Pull-ups should be part of the test as it encourages the development of a critical group of muscles that are largely ignored by an Army that simply wanted a test it could do anywhere without any implements. This test also eliminates the need for the silly body fat tests (implemented by the same marathon running, pencil necked generals who took the pull ups out of the test to begin with)

    I also believe in gender/age-generic base standards for every soldier expected to preform in a given environment; not tailored to accommodate a false equality that puts missions and soldiers at risk.

    I also believe that excellence should be encouraged, so not only must one measure performance above the baseline, one must reward it as well, and not with a cloth badge to sew on my PTs. Put full scores on OER/NCOER rather than a pathetic "pass"; and take those DA photos in your PT tshirt and shorts while holding your Class A Jacket up on a hanger so that they can assess your ribbons as well as the soldier who earned them.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    DC/Northern VA/MD
    Posts
    4

    Default

    I can't speak in great detail about why the APFT is what it is today, but I have been told that one of the main deciding factors in Push Ups vs. Pull Ups was based more on idea that Army Leadership wanted Soldiers to be able to do APFTs anywhere in the world with nothing more than a flat piece of ground and a track. Back circa 2000, there were talks of a new experimental APFT that included an exercise that required a pull up bar. The issue, as I understood it, was that instituting this APFT would require units across the Army (to include deployed locations in the Baltics) to build pull up bars, and that was a non-starter.

    I am a fan of the following:

    1. The Marines have a good idea, once a year you do the traditional PT test, once a year you do a combat focused test. It might be a bit tricky to keep up with administrative wise, but I like the concept and the compromise.

    2. The Air Force made a mistake we should not follow, and they made the PT test too "scientific" with their VO2 max test. While VO2 max is an excellent measure of fitness, it doesn't measure something that must be measured by any PT test, and that is "Heart".

    3. I do like pull ups for many reasons, and I recommend kipping vs. non kipping. I admit I am a CrossFit guy, so I've done both and am a bit biased. Kipping involves a greater number of muscle groups and does not isolate the arms, it encourages more of a full body, functional fitness, which is what we should measure for any fitness test.

    4. Reality is, men and woman are different, so I am okay with different standards. I am also a fan of how the APFT changed its standards 10 years ago so that the hardest age group was the late 20's and not 18 year olds. I expect someone with 5-10 years of service to be in better shape than a new recruit. I think both of those concepts should be maintained.

    5. I like the idea of a basic fitness PT test that is point based (graduated scale based on gender and age),events common to all because when you sit on a board and look at evals, you do need a common reference. So some form of common test should be maintained.

    6. Like the Marine model, let's go with a Combat focused test, IMO, it should be MOS based (or a group of MOSs). It would be easier to keep the events the same and make scoring (or pass/fail standards) different based on MOS groups. This Combat Focused PT test may only be required for deploying personnel, as it will require gear and obstacles provided by the post/installation. Events should include:

    a. Full kit fireman's carry of someone similar weight (plus or minus x lbs)
    b. Road march over 6 miles (I doesn't have to be a ruck, but it must include basic battle rattle, and the time standards should be demanding, not the usual 4 mph).
    c. I would love some form of a lifting exercise, but so many issues with this. Where do you get the weights, how do you ensure proper technique to avoid injury, etc. I love CrossFit, but for those who are untrained or poorly supervised, these type of exercises are high risk.
    d. Some form of urban obstacle course would be ideal. This should involve moving point A to B, in full kit, assigned weapon. Low walls, high walls, going in and out of windows, stairs, rough terrain, etc. Very hard to establish this, but I think it could be done. Every large post has a bayonet course, let's get with the times and convert it. Make enough of them that units can use them "free for all" on PT days or reserve them for training/testing.
    e. The ideal test is a scenario where you incorporate all of the above in what is called a "full mission profile." For example, you could walk to the course (Road march for time), run the obstacles, as if you are reacting to an ambush, and finish with ammo carries, buddy carries, etc. Each event, although continuous, are timed and graded separately on a pass/fail standard, and that time standard can change based on MOS group. But it is pass/fail.

    Too hard to do. Probably.

  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Posted by Bob,

    I do believe that Pull-ups should be part of the test as it encourages the development of a critical group of muscles that are largely ignored by an Army that simply wanted a test it could do anywhere without any implements. This test also eliminates the need for the silly body fat tests (implemented by the same marathon running, pencil necked generals who took the pull ups out of the test to begin with)
    As long as we have the pencil neck generals we'll have a geek PT test. I remember when we had the excessive push to have photo op boys who were very lean, but couldn't do squat physically, except maybe run a couple miles. I think we got away from that, and now it is O.K. to actually have barrel chested men in the ranks again.

    The other issue is the great desire for our officers to manage and compete by power point instead of actually lead Soldiers. If "management" goal is to have more green on your slide than the other units, then you probably don't want a tougher P.T. test, nor do you want to distract from training for the PT test by doing relevant combat fitness training. You can't have more green if the PT test is actually tougher.

    I guess in the end we do O.K. despite our shortfalls, but with the exception of very few units god help us if we get in a tough fight where we have to fight in dismounted and move several miles a day under a combat load. That type of conditioning doesn't happen overnight, and how many push ups you can do just doesn't matter.

  12. #12
    Council Member USMC-03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Moscow on the Willamette (i.e. Portland, Oregon)
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Physical fitness tests and standards have always been a peeve of mine; one is because they don't test "field" fitness and two because they weighed so heavily for promotion scores. In my case, while I could run the distance and then some, I was never very fast; 20 minutes or so on the 3-mile run. The thing that always irritated me was to see the "jackrabbits" that could break a 15 minute three mile, darlings of the command and quickly promoted, fold like a jackknifes after about 5 miles with an 80+ pack on their back. I fell into the "mule" class; load us up with all the gear and we'll get to the objective 30 miles down the road combat ready. For my own part I'd rather surround myself with mules rather than jackrabbits…

    As I understand it the Corps is changing things up these days. Hopefully it will be a better measure of field readiness.

    In order for any sort of fitness program and quantitative evaluation to be effective there must be some questions answered up front:

    What is the mission?
    What are the expected demands of individuals during the mission?
    How do we best train for the physical aspects of that mission?
    What is the most effective method of testing for individual fitness mission readiness?

    Always keep the mission in mind first.

  13. #13
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Global Scout View Post
    Posted by Gute,



    It is fight I don't intend to win, but you addressed the issue I'm concerned with. The military is more concerned about standards that are easy to understand and score. It is more about the test than actually be fit for combat. Of course you addressed the remedy to that in the remainder of your post, which I concur with.

    Posted by Rifleman,


    I started doing planks about a year ago and my back feels much better, but I don't think planks develop the same functional muscles as sit ups? Also do isometric sit ups (get up in a 45 degree angle and hold a few seconds and repeat a few times). Another way to add some muscle to your mid section is by doing curls, just a couple of miller beers per night will pack on the mass
    The plank can be a killer, but it needs to be held for minutes to really determine fitness. I believe the Bureau got away from the 2 mile run, now I wish we would. The Bureau replaced it with a 300 meter sprint, which is more applicable for the job. Our PFT (DEA) is push-ups (60-70 max points), pull ups (no kip allowed, 20 max points), sit ups (100 in two minutes max points), 2 mile run (12 minutes and under max points), and a shuttle run (don't remember the exact numbers - low 20 something second range - you gotta be moving like a stripped ass ape to max). We have gotten away from the long runs and now take the trainees out and have em sprint then, run flights of stairs with vest, shield, ram, etc. You prepare yourself for the PFT on your own time. The PFT is taken three times while you go through the academy and never again - yep you read that right. So, why give it three times? I say set the minimum standards higher and the give the test once - when you arrive. If ya fail you re-test in a couple of days, but if ya fail again your done.

  14. #14
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    All in all the tests are going to have to change because society is obese, but the ranks still need to be filled. Physical standards will be lowered and technology will be the excuse. The military has been concerned for quite some time now that the number of fit recruits is dwindling. Body by
    Play Station.

  15. #15
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    106

    Default

    USMC-03 posted

    In my case, while I could run the distance and then some, I was never very fast; 20 minutes or so on the 3-mile run. The thing that always irritated me was to see the "jackrabbits" that could break a 15 minute three mile, darlings of the command and quickly promoted, fold like a jackknifes after about 5 miles with an 80+ pack on their back. I fell into the "mule" class; load us up with all the gear and we'll get to the objective 30 miles down the road combat ready. For my own part I'd rather surround myself with mules rather than jackrabbits…
    Running 3 miles in around 20 minutes represents a high level of fitness (but as you stated, it definitely does make you an elite runner). However, you can't automatically associate jack rabbit with a guy who can't carry a ruck. I do believe it is true that those who train excessively for triathalons and marathons are basically one trick ponies and their fitness levels for combat are questionable, and I have seen them collapse, especially when climbing mountains. Not sure why, but those conditioned to run marathons do not perform well at altitude or in combatives (this is understandable).

    Posted by Gute,

    We have gotten away from the long runs and now take the trainees out and have em sprint then, run flights of stairs with vest, shield, ram, etc. You prepare yourself for the PFT on your own time.
    Exactly what they should be doing, the only long distance activity we should be doing is force marching (not a casual stroll) with the appropriate loads. Running is designed to get you somewhere fast, as fast as possible. 300m sprints, hill runs, sled pulls, tire flips, pushing cars, etc. are a much more effective way to develop functional fitness than the typical candy ass military P.T. so called long run, which is generally a painfully slow 4-5 mile run to what end?

    I'm well past that stage in my career where I do organized P.T., so I'm actually able to focus on functional fitness instead of mass stupidity. Funny, we all know how important fitness is to our jobs, and yet many spend so little time studying it, and simply waste hours of their life repeating mindless sets of push ups and running. With the same about of time and a lot more science in program design we could really develop some physical animals. They exist in our ranks already, but that is due to their own efforts and programs, not unit P.T.

  16. #16
    Council Member USMC-03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Moscow on the Willamette (i.e. Portland, Oregon)
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Global Scout, you are certainly correct that blanket statements are often inaccurate. By no means does my observation apply to all runners in the elite category and there were certainly plenty of service members that could neither run nor hump a pack. My statement is purely anecdotal but occurred enough times for me to take note.

    Actually though, since you mention triathletes I trained for and participated in several. Not only was it great fun but I considered it fantastic training since the body had to adapt to more than one discipline. I also think the summer biathlon (running and shooting) superior training since in really did simulate the stresses on both the mind and body that one might find in any number of situations. There are thousands of ways to train physically, it's just finding those that work best for the individual.

    And always think mission…

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perpetual_Student View Post
    In light of the major discussion on women in combat arms we have gotten into a rather deep discussion on the PT standard. In order to try and stay focused on the issues of women in combat arms (which PT does have some basis). I am starting this thread to dig deeper into the pt issue (which I believe is a create topic as all kinds of news things are coming up. Marines=CFT)?

    Some things that have come up:
    1. Kipping vs. Non-Kipping Pullups?
    2. Setting the standard to the lowest service member?
    3. Different standards for men and women?
    4. Different standards for different MOSs?
    5. Should the PT "standard" be tied directly to what you would expect of someone in combat?

    Many many more avenues along which to take this topic. I believe that the PT standard should be something that is functional fitness and would evaluate the abilities of a service member based off of the expectations that the average person would need to accomplish in combat. My thoughts....less than a mile run, some sort of pulling yourself up or climbing, lifting items from the ground over head, and just in general not with our PT standard but we need some sort of stretching /yoga/trigger point type therapy that can help reduce injury more from gear, long drives and just impact from PT and combat.

    Thoughts......
    Since most armies spend so little time in actual combat and then when a war is on there is a large part of the force which does not get into combat one needs to be sure not to lose sight of the aim.

    One has to take the guess work out of the definition of combat fitness.

    Right now the US and Brit militaries are in the position to gauge what that is or should be. As such they are in a unique position to redefine this level so as to allow future training to be amended accordingly. Jon Custis for one is there or has been there recently I believe and may be in a position to report back from his perspective where the specific physical challenges his men experience are and how he would best prepare them next time round.

    I suggest that the pull-up, sit-up, shuttle run stuff may have more value to build up recruits and to maintain basic fitness levels among non-combat forces.

    Back to combat fitness one should consider the aerobic requirements and accept that anaerobic are supported by adrenaline injections.

    Having been a PTI way back I would suggest that the Infantry must decide what physical capability is required for their specific role and the PTIs should exercise soldiers to that end. Don't give the PTIs a free hand otherwise some will continue to think/believe that somehow pull-ups and push-ups somehow have more importance than exercising in full combat gear.

  18. #18
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    133

    Default A Question of Incentives

    What gets rewarded gets done.

    Like everything in life, this is all about incentives. The new Army PT guidelines, recently published in TC 3-22.20 (replacing FM 21-20), have numerous battle focused PT exercises and programs.

    However, the APFT is still the same.

    The intent of the APFT is to provide a mechanism (via positive and negative incentives associated with personal and unit scores) to induce soldiers and units to maintain a high state of physical readiness. The problem is the APFT does not incentivize overall fitness. Rather, it incentivizes leaders to get high APFT scores through repetitious workouts centered around the three APFT events.

    Any change to how we train physically must start with modification of the test to incentivize performance. The current approach in TC 3-22.20 of "recommending" that soldiers and units do not train to the APFT is wishful thinking.

    On a related issue, one of the concerns seems to be that customizing PT tests to individual MOS / Branch requirements will make it difficult to use PT in the promotions process.

    I would question the underlying assumption that physical fitness should be used to compare soldiers for promotion. Research has consistently shown that the best predictor of leader performance at increased levels of responsibility is not what the Army looks at, i.e. physical fitness, experience, and evaluations. Rather, it is cognitive ability. Smart guys and gals make good leaders (wow - revolutionary).

    We can keep the "points" system on whatever APFT we come up with, but for promotions a simple go or no go should be sufficient. Otherwise, you run the risk of really fast and strong morons getting promoted at the expense of smarter soldiers. In fact, I have heard many of my good friends in the infantry complain the cultural preference for highly fit leaders has resulted in the promotion of poor, but very fit leaders in some cases.

    For those of you who may argue that meeting the minimum APFT standard is not enough for leaders, I would argue the issue is with the standard itself. Figure out what the minimum standard should be and raise it as needed. There is a certain point where one can deal with the physical hardships of military duty just as well as the next soldier, despite any difference in APFT score. Weighting physical fitness scores beyond that point is to ignore much more relevant measures of leader effectiveness.
    There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
    -Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
    http://irondice.wordpress.com/

  19. #19
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M.L. View Post
    What gets rewarded gets done.

    Like everything in life, this is all about incentives.
    Here is an interesting 10 minute clip on how incentives don't always produce the results we like to think they should.
    Nothing to do with the rest of your post or this thread.
    Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

    All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    (Arthur Schopenhauer)

    ONWARD

  20. #20
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    133

    Default On Rationality

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt View Post
    Here is an interesting 10 minute clip on how incentives don't always produce the results we like to think they should.
    Nothing to do with the rest of your post or this thread.
    There are numerous studies like the ones that Mr. Pink cites in his book. Mr. Pink's argument, along with many other books, is essentially that people do not behave "rationally" as we think of it. Of course, the problem isn't with people - the problem is that we have a flawed concept of "rationality", which of course, then leads to flawed concepts of what constitutes incentives.

    We think of rationality as an objective mindset that should produce predictable if-then rules. Suppose I put you in front of a chess computer with 10 levels. To incentivize you, I offer you $1 for each game won. You have one hour. Objective rationality says that you should keep the game on level one to win as many games (and as much money) as possible. However, (and this experiment has been done), most players will almost immediately select a higher level of difficulty.

    Why is this so? Because rationality is subjective, not objective. Each person's subjective reality is really a combination of rationality (subjective assessment of what is best for me), culture (deeply held values and assumptions), and emotion (excitement, beauty, and fulfillment). Playing against level one is simply boring. This model explains why people jump out of airplanes - or, to use Mr. Pink's example, do not respond to monetary incentives.

    Mr. Pink's argument is not that people do not respond to incentives - it is that our flawed concept of objective (and simplistic) rationality lead us to offer the wrong incentives.

    So, how does this play into the discussion about the PT test? Mr. Pink's argument doesn't help us a whole lot because we are at a different level on Maslow's hierarchy. Autonomy, mastery, and purpose (Pink's big incentives) are all associated with higher levels of need on Maslow's hierarchy.

    In contrast, if you fail or do poorly on the APFT, you may lose your job. Having a job is a very low-level need. The lower the need on Maslow's hierarchy, the easier it is to predict behavior based on incentives. If I point a loaded gun to your head and tell you to give me your wallet, we have now arrived at the lowest level. The incentive is pretty clear, and I can predict your behavior with a high degree of reliability. The higher we go on the hierarchy, the more complex and diverse each person's vision of subjective rationality becomes, and the more difficult it becomes to predict and incentivize behavior.

    The bottom line is that people will train to the test because there is a lot at stake if you fail or do poorly on the test. If you want to change physical training to be more battle-focused, you must change the test to incentivize the training.
    There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
    -Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
    http://irondice.wordpress.com/

Similar Threads

  1. Crimes, War Crimes and the War on Terror
    By davidbfpo in forum Law Enforcement
    Replies: 600
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 04:30 PM
  2. Honor, murder and "the law".
    By 120mm in forum Social Sciences, Moral, and Religious
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 05-09-2009, 10:37 PM
  3. Battle Drill
    By Norfolk in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 02-17-2009, 04:51 PM
  4. Press and Public Reactions to Civilian Deaths in Wartime
    By Jedburgh in forum Media, Information & Cyber Warriors
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-22-2007, 11:42 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •