Military attracts violent louts - study
...
Col. Mike Capstick, a co-author of the report, says not all those who expressed an interest in the military would have signed on, nor would all who signed on have been accepted, survived training or unit integration. "We know that some of them are released because they're just not suitable for military service," said Capstick.
...While the report suggests attitudes "mellow" with age, it paints a picture of potential recruits who are spoiled, petulant and who "defer to external codes and rules" but look after their own self-interest...
pbi said:A 26% response rate leaves a pretty significant margin for statistical error. A result this low (in any poll) raises the question of whether or not the only ones responding are those who have an axe to grind.
Cheers
A typical five-day survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, employing standard techniques used by most opinion polling organizations, now obtains interviews with people in fewer than three-in-ten sampled households (27%). That represents a decrease of about nine percentage points (on average) from the late 1990s.1 The decline results from increased reluctance to participate in surveys and not from an inability by survey organizations to contact someone in a household.
Following the opinion of a polling authority on statistical validity, the committee recommended that in circuits or appellate districts having at least 1,500 ISBA members, the minimum return be lowered from 300 to 250 ballots and the minimum response rate drop from 20 to 15 percent return for results to be released publicly.
Young Canadians interested in joining the military tend to lack life goals, feel alienated and accept violence to achieve ends, says an internal army study obtained by The Canadian Press. Some findings in the 80-page report suggest army recruiters should carefully screen the 5,000 additional soldiers they plan to hire over the next five years
Kirkhill said:The company that supplied the polling data, CROP, is owned by the chap that wrote Fire and Ice. A book that highlights differences between Canada and the US.
This study is much of a sameness.
It seems that the role this company has carved for itself is to find difference. Probably the reason it gets paid. Not much "value" in declaring everything is as you thought it was and these are normal folks doing normal things and thinking just like everybody else.
Looking at the diagrammes, and disadvantaged because no numerical scale is included and no definition of where the crosshairs lie, the most interesting observation to me was in discussing regional differences.
The author went to lengths to point up the differences between regions and yet LFCA, LFAA, LFWA and the Force at large are pretty tightly grouped around the crosshairs and even SQFT, although an outlier, in the absence of numeric indicators may not be as far removed as it seems.
It is possible that differences exist, perhaps even likely. It is also possible that significant statistical differences exist, although that is not evident from the paper. However it is also possible to make too much of minor differences and blow them up resulting in unnecessary schisms.
The one issue I found interesting was the analysis of the recruit pool and its difference to the Force Means. Having said that there is no indication as to how these young prospects differ from their uninterested peers nor is there adequate testing of how they differ from accepted recruits on day one, after a year, after 3 years.... Unless you follow a cohort through the system it is difficult to make inferences on either the raw material or the impact of the system on the raw material and how that influences outcomes.
I also found interesting the use of untested words to describe conclusions on values. For example, "maturity". The authors seem to agree that "maturity" is a good thing but it is undefined. It was not a "value" that was tested in a "values" survey and yet the authors speculate that a lack of it may explain the attitudes of youngsters inside and outside the forces and that as they become more "mature" they will likely become more "tolerant". I am not sure that follows.
On the issue of discipline in LFWA it states that because more LFWA members report more incidences of indiscipline therefore there are more discipline issues in LFWA. Something of a logical circuit there. The inference is that LFWA is less disciplined. It could as easily be argued, from this data, that LFWA is less tolerant of indiscipline and thus less of a discipline problem. That would seem to mesh with the notion of them and the SQFT and the LFAA being intolerant compared to those paragons of tolerance in "Toronto's Army" ;D.
I think the study is a useful exercise and can supply some interesting discussion points but, as usual, it doesn't warrant getting knickers in a twist over some headline writer's desire to sell papers by generating a sensational headline.
Cheers.
If you want better stories or stories about certain things, hound a reporter for awhile, or else write your own stuff and try to get it published
mdh said:The question I have (as usual) is where is the CF response to this? Once again the strategy seems to be hide and hope it all goes away.
cheers, mdh
Short answer; the CF treats this sort of thing with exactly what it deserves...Which is not to even condnsider it important or serious enough to respond to.
Does the strategy work?
There were no follow-up articles in today's paper.
That's a good thing.
If there are no follow-ups by this time next week, that'll be a great thing.
Those exploring a military career are not so much interested in serving as in "being someone and belonging to something."
They tend to pursue happiness before duty, give personal life priority over work, and in ethical dilemmas tend to favour personal interests.
They want to own status symbols and look good, and need to "break out of their isolation and share the collective emotions of a group
It may seem that the media doesn't want to consider other viewpoints, but by writing a letter to the editor or (even better) having a PAFFO from NDHQ call and challenge the reporter's accuracy does make a difference over the long run (IMHO).