Recruiting for SWC members because....

[Dayuhan]

First, how do we make this little corner of the internet grow? What types of people do we want to attract to it?

That is the question. Answers are a little harder to come by, of course. In this case it's not only about attracting new people. There's also the question of re-attracting members that have become less active or inactive. Speaking only for myself, many, probably most, of the members whose contributions led me to come here are no longer around. Having them back would be wonderful; having new people here would be equally wonderful. How to accomplish that... I wish I knew.

A start might be to ascertain what led people to be active here in the first place, and what leads them to become less active.

I'm a member of the H-Net Middle East Politics mailing list and I had to provide verification of my academic credentials, what my research interests were, and what I was hoping to gain. This may be overkill for SWC, but it is something to consider. Perhaps everyone can post, but if you do have some kind of academic of military related credential, adding it to your title so the community is aware? Maybe the Editors can maintain a list of folks with appropriate credentials to do book/article reviews?

If academic or military credentials were required, I'd never have been let in the door. One of the most appealing factors about SWJ (to me), from the start, was the blend of field experience and academic input in a mutually respectful environment.

I do have ideas on how to get more folks from the humanities over here.

I'd have nothing against having more people from the humanities, but I'd also like to see more people from the "field" side, particularly voices from outside the US.

A few other members have brought up concerns regarding viewpoints other than official' not being welcomed. Maybe this is a good time to have a broad discussion about this?

I'm about as far outside the official box as it's possible to be, and I've never found this to be the case. Of course views, official or other, will be scrutinized and criticized, but that the nature of a forum. I have never felt any sense that views from outside the military or the politically orthodox camps were at all unwelcome. Certain types of behavior are unwelcome, but those constraints are easy enough to meet.

Does the military really want to change or do they want to just check in the box?

I wouldn't know about "the military" as an institution, but there certainly seem to be people within that institution that want to explore and discuss change. I'm sure they face substantial inertia, but that is the nature of institutions. From the perspective of the forum, there seems no shortage of people on the inside who are willing to discuss change.

I have noticed that many of those with proposals for change from within the .mil camp tend to gravitate toward the Journal, rather than the Council... perhaps because publication in the Journal fits on a resume? I think that unfortunate, as the Council seems to me a better venue for continuing discussion. I confess to having had occasional fantasies about tossing a few advocates of "Design" into a coliseum with Wilf Owen, Fuchs and a few others.

Is the anti-intellectual culture myth or reality?

I've actually been accused of anti-intellectualism a few times, on the Journal side. There may be an anti-intellectual culture, but there also seems to be a culture (possibly a minority subculture) that greatly esteems intellectual display... the aforementioned apostles of "Design" might again appear as exhibit A. My own perception is that this subculture at time prioritizes intellectual trappings over intellectual rigor, and the repeated (and strained) invocations of quantum physics and postmodernism occasionally make me want to toss... but maybe I really am anti-intellectual. I would say that while there may be an overall anti-intellectual atmosphere, there are enough intellectual subcultures to sustain discussion, and enough field folks to keep the intellectual discussion anchored and honest.

While the 'Cycle of Bitching' is can be gratifying, it ultimately does nothing.

This is true, and it brings us back to the chicken/egg question: does the discussion become cyclical because there are so few participants, or have the participants dropped away because the discussion became cyclical? Probably a bit of both, I'd say.

These are just my suggestions and questions. I'm also willing to put my money where my mouth is and volunteer to get some of this rolling.

As would I, given some practical ideas about what might be done. I'm still looking for some.

[jmm99]

Either in a new thread (if you want), or in this thread, The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL, where signature strikes were first mentioned 1 Nov 2012, One Strike You're Out ??.

Judging from the zero response to that post's request:

Discuss, if you wish, the plusses and minuses of the matrix as written

- as well as

(1) the test you would use to include a factor (e.g., "more likely than not", "reasonable certainty", "high degree of confidence", etc., etc.);

(2) whether you would include or exclude each factor separately without considering the other factors (strict "must stand on its own" test); or would you aggregate all factors supported by some evidence, even where each such factor would not "stand on its own" ("conditional probability"); and

(3) whether other factors should be added to the matrix.

This doesn't require legalese.

either I was exhaustively correct in hypothecating the matrix - a doubtful proposition - or, no one was interested in the topic.

Since the 1st of this year, the thread has been almost exclusively devoted to drones and kill lists, with not very much viewer input.

So, yes; bring it on ! We clearly need some academic input.

Regards

Mike

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Dayuhan

I've actually been accused of anti-intellectualism a few times, on the Journal side. There may be an anti-intellectual culture, but there also seems to be a culture (possibly a minority subculture) that greatly esteems intellectual display... the aforementioned apostles of "Design" might again appear as exhibit A. My own perception is that this subculture at time prioritizes intellectual trappings over intellectual rigor, and the repeated (and strained) invocations of quantum physics and postmodernism occasionally make me want to toss... but maybe I really am anti-intellectual.

Oh I needed to read that, I feel so much better that it just isn't me. Taleb wrote something similar in his book, "The Black Swan." He wrote about a professor that droned on and on about post this and post that and in the end made no particular point, but apparently was quite impressed with himself. I loved the way you framed it, trappings without rigor. Until the design crowd moves past the trappings to the rigor, and in effect get to simplicity on the far side of complexity it will make little progress. They'll blame the institution but in particular case it isn't institutional bias, it is just simply that this dog doesn't hunt in its current form. I attended a week of design training where the instructors were actually able to get to the point quite effectively without masking the meaning in philosophical jargon. I always thought when I retired retired and marijuana is legal it might be fun (or not) to toke on a joint and ponder the philosophical underpinnings of post this and post that and how it applies to design theory. On the other hand, maybe just drinking a cold beer and talking with friends would be more fun?

[graphei]

Ah, it's amazing what some sleep can do for a person.

With regard to the 'anti-intellectual' comment I made, it wasn't so much with regard to here, but more aimed at the larger military culture. I've been working my way through Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife and I've been spending a lot of time ponder learning 'cultures'. I definitely agree intellectual trappings versus intellectual rigor. A professor of mine had a different phrase for those who wanted the trappings without any of the rigor: intellectual masturbation.

I was attempting to hit at something similar with my questions regarding "official" view points. For those who are currently serving, is there any pressure for them to just quietly tow the line? The fantastic part about the Journal and Council is there is no 'official' line. Sometimes sacred cows make for great steaks.

For the proof of identification, I wouldn't want it used as a measuring stick for membership here. Bringing all of these different perspectives together is what makes this spot on the net great. However, if someone claims to have military experience or an advanced degree, perhaps parameters for voluntary verification can be discussed?

Now, I'm going to get the book club going. I need to do some more research, but look for a post by Wednesday.

[Hippofeet]

I guess I feel like sort of an anti-intellectual, even though I just finished a massive info-intake about economics. I now know how to pronounce Bastiat.

I've just always have had bad mental associations with any (at least self proclaimed) intellectual. Some guy who's first car was a gifted Saab, went to a prep school, didn't have to work while he went to college for 9 years sitting around all tweedy in a red leather captain's chair reading something written by someone else on an identical life track, nodding in agreement and secretly selecting passages to plagiarize for some up coming (and doomed to obscurity) paper.

Also, my prose is fairly poor. I don't write as well, or as thoughtfully as some of you guys. Kinda embarrassing. So my go to position is not to post, even if I think I have something to add to the conversation. Lets not go into my need to google the spelling of the simplest words.

As far as credentials, I could send a DD-214, no prob, but an Honorable Discharge doesn't mean I'm not an idiot. And a Master's degree doesn't mean your not a jerk I don't want to talk to. (That's not directed at anyone here). I don't know how you would vet members. I guess I read posts, and over a period of time, come to trust or distrust the author, based on my own probably skewed feelings. I like Dayuhan, even though he says things I dont like. Him, I would trust.

Mostly, I just come on the site, skim around a bit, and leave. As far as getting more people on here, I guess SEO work, same as any other site. I like it here, I just turn off when it turns into a U.S. bashfest, no matter how deserved, on occasion. Small Wars? It's sort of heading towards one BIG small war, isn't it?