Welcome to the positive use of Dark Arts. You can enumerate the exploited biases galore as an exercise.
Indiscriminately calling the soldiers and especially the war dead heroes is quite rational, as it facilitates the country’s task of maintaining an enlisted military force, as opposed to a mercenary force. Yes, it’s brainwashing, and it is irrational for the individuals believe it, but it is very much the right thing to do for the government. Imagine what would happen if the prevailing sentiment was “well, these dead soldiers weren’t very nice people, anyway, so, whatevs”.
Effective organizations have official policies; members who act against those policies in important ways while on duty rapidly stop being part of the organization. Different departments and organizations within the government formulate and carry out policies on different issues, sometimes clashing with each other… but that’s not entirely dissimilar to a person suffering internal conflicts when e.g. meal planning and libido point in opposite directions.
I would be interested to know if there is a research on the subject. It does not seem unreasonable that organizations have utility functions different from its individual members. After all, that’s how bee hives and ant colonies work.
Indiscriminately calling the soldiers and especially the war dead heroes is quite rational, as it facilitates the country’s task of maintaining an enlisted military force, as opposed to a mercenary force.
Enlisted soliders get paid already. Plus they get to wear uniform and the associated status perks. Simple economics applies even without introducing ‘mercenary forces’.
Presumably without the ribbons they’d have to be paid more. And the status perks seem tied to the same thing that causes people to call war dead “heroes.”
Welcome to the positive use of Dark Arts. You can enumerate the exploited biases galore as an exercise.
Indiscriminately calling the soldiers and especially the war dead heroes is quite rational, as it facilitates the country’s task of maintaining an enlisted military force, as opposed to a mercenary force. Yes, it’s brainwashing, and it is irrational for the individuals believe it, but it is very much the right thing to do for the government. Imagine what would happen if the prevailing sentiment was “well, these dead soldiers weren’t very nice people, anyway, so, whatevs”.
Treating “the government” as anything like a unified agent for whom one can define self-interest or a utility function is problematic.
Effective organizations have official policies; members who act against those policies in important ways while on duty rapidly stop being part of the organization. Different departments and organizations within the government formulate and carry out policies on different issues, sometimes clashing with each other… but that’s not entirely dissimilar to a person suffering internal conflicts when e.g. meal planning and libido point in opposite directions.
I would be interested to know if there is a research on the subject. It does not seem unreasonable that organizations have utility functions different from its individual members. After all, that’s how bee hives and ant colonies work.
Kin groups with millions of years of natural selection aren’t really the same.
Maybe, or maybe not. Like I said, I’d be interested in seeing the relevant research.
Enlisted soliders get paid already. Plus they get to wear uniform and the associated status perks. Simple economics applies even without introducing ‘mercenary forces’.
Presumably without the ribbons they’d have to be paid more. And the status perks seem tied to the same thing that causes people to call war dead “heroes.”
Eliezer discussed something similar in the post Bayesians vs. Barbarians .