Initial Officer Selection

[JMA]

In his book Made, Not Born: Why Some Soldiers Are Better Than Others Bruce Newsome makes an argument:

Newsome argues that the capabilities of combat soldiers are acquired through military training and other forms of conditioning, but he does not entirely discount the role of a soldier's individual character. In the age-old nature vs. nurture argument, he finds that intrinsic qualities do count, but that extrinsic factors, such as training and environment, matter even more.

Is it not the other way around?

He concluded:

The Conclusion summarizes the research and makes suggestions for policy and further research. Soldiers are made more than born. To assume otherwise leads, at best, to wasted effort and unnecessary discrimination, and, at worst, retarded combat performance and increased illegal violence.

Does this conclusion make sense?

[AmericanPride]

JMA,

I agree with his conclusion. Intrinisc qualities may create predispositions towards one an ideal soldier, but ultimately it is a learned behavior through training, experience, and conditioning.

[Steve Blair]

JMA,

I agree with his conclusion. Intrinisc qualities may create predispositions towards one an ideal soldier, but ultimately it is a learned behavior through training, experience, and conditioning.

Ultimately is too strong a word here. As always, the ideal comes through a combination of solid training and innate ability. Which part (training or innate ability) is more important? That depends on the individual. Poor training will not create an ideal soldier no matter how good the raw material, but at the same time a "broken" person (or someone lacking an innate ability or grounding) cannot be made into an ideal soldier no matter how solid the training. Good systems recognize this.