I like the model you’re developing here as an intuitively plausible explanation of akrasia. However, I think the comparison of BUD/S to, say, ritual scarification or bullet-ant gloves isn’t strong enough to support your theory.
Like we might hope, it endows its survivors (because some die as a direct result of it) with focus, decisiveness, and basically all the conscientiousness they need to seriously “kick ass” — that is, underperform their cognitive potential much less than most do.
This point about BUD/S isn’t obviously correct to me. Something like 75% of candidates drop out without completing the course. This is strong evidence to me that BUD/S primarily selects for whatever it’s designed to optimize for (whether intentionally or unintentionally) rather than endowing it.
Thirty-five percent of the attrites dropped during the indoctrination period; 27 percent, during the first 2 weeks of training, 15 percent, during Hellweek; and 23 percent,during the remainder of the training period.
(page v). An average 20% of the attrites who passed the screen quit during Hell Week (page v), three weeks into the actual course, and as high as 36% did in two of the classes studied (page 18). If BUD/S cultivated traits rather than selecting for them, I would expect the dropouts to be more evenly distributed. You could observe that many of the attrites during the indoctrination period failed the physical screening test, but then we have to determine how well conscientiousness correlates with passing the screen...
Admittedly, those statistics don’t differentiate between medical attrition and voluntary attrition, which were each about 40% of total attrition.
This study by the Navy doesn’t seem to support your claim that BUD/S makes people conscientious to the extent you suggest. SEALs seem to be somewhat, but not hugely, above civilian average on the conscientiousness scale (page 10). Somewhat contra my arguments, this observational study admits that it could not rule out the possibility that BUD/S increases conscientiousness (page 11).
This study by RAND indicates (page 11) that the Air Force Research Laboratory concluded that higher-than-average conscientiousness was predictive of success in the Combat Controller course (a component of the Air Force’s special operations side). Combat Controllers work alongside other branches’ special forces people, so presumably they need some of the same special sauce in order to succeed. CCT school is much shorter than BUD/S, I admit, but it’s some evidence that conscientiousness is a cause, not an effect, of success in Special Forces.
I think the most favorable claim you could make based on BUD/S is “To the extent that high conscientiousness is required for a BUD/S candidate’s success in the course and as a SEAL, only 25% of the candidates either have the requisite conscientiousness at the start of the course or develop it during the course before the course selects against their then-current level of conscientiousness.”
[edit: changed “SEALS” to “BUD/S” in the first graf]
Thank you for offering feedback! The study you mentioned also references another that may indicate that further studies could be helpful to determine whether there is an effect “The results of McDonald, et al. (1988) suggest, inconclusively, that some personality changes may occur during SEAL training” (p 12). Generally speaking, your criticism is well-taken; I agree that the SEAL example is a difficult one because of the strong selection effects. Generally speaking, one should a priori expect more composite conscientiousness in any elite group (except maybe among artists?). One would have to diff-in-diff things to empirically determine an added training-based effect.
My main qualm with the selection argument is it might elide differences between sub-traits of conscientiousness. “The average SEAL is also more persistent, reliable, and scrupulous, viewing life as a series of task- oriented challenges,” whereas BUD/S seems only to select for one of these sub-traits: persistence. Given that there is status associated with being a SEAL, we might expect Berkson’s Paradox to actually lead SEALS to be somewhat lower in the unselected sub-traits (task-orientation, reliable, scrupulous). Since this is not the case, we might adopt a null hypothesis wherein we expect that there is some add-on effect from training itself.
That being said, you’re right that this is very far from conclusive. I suspect it would only really be compelling to those who personally witnessed the rapid shift in personality consequent to elite military training in an acquaintance. I count myself among this group, but recognize it may not exactly be a large % of the LW community — hopefully there the convergent cultural evolution argument holds a bit more weight?
I suspect it would only really be compelling to those who personally witnessed the rapid shift in personality consequent to elite military training in an acquaintance.
I kinda fit that. I know someone who went from a “pot smoking slacker” to “elite and conscientious SOF badass”, which kinda looks like what you’re talking about from afar.
However, my conclusions from actually talking to him about it all before, during (iirc?), and after are very different. The training seems to be very very much about selection, everyone who got traumatized was weeded out, and things like “reliable, and scrupulous, viewing life as a series of task- oriented challenges” were all selected for.
The training did have some effects, but not to that magnitude, not by that mechanism, and not necessarily even in that direction.
Thanks for offering this insight! Could you clarify how those things are selected for in training? I am actually struggling to imagine how they could be selected for in a BUD/S context — so sharing would be helpful!
Also, you say that the training had effects but “not to that magnitude … not necessarily even in that direction.” I’m confused — it sounds like your friend enjoyed effects both to that magnitude and in that direction. Am I misunderstanding?
Also, if he did enjoy such effects as you describe, do you have any hypotheses for the mechanism? Given that such radical changes are quite rare naturally, we’d expect there to be something at play here right?
Could you clarify how those things are selected for in training? I am actually struggling to imagine how they could be selected for in a BUD/S context — so sharing would be helpful!
(Army special forces, not SEALs)
Scrupulosity: They had some tough navigation challenges where they were presented with opportunities to attempt to cheat, such as using flashlights or taking literal shortcuts, and several were weeded out there.
Reliability: They had peer reviews, where the people who couldn’t work well with a team got booted. Depends on what exactly you mean by “reliability”, but “we can’t rely on this guy” sounded like a big part of what people got dinged for there.
“Viewing life as a series of task- oriented challenges” seems like a big part of the attitude that my friend had that helped him do very well there, even if a lot of it comes through as persistence. Some of it is significantly different though, like in SERE training where the challenge for him wasn’t so much “don’t quit” so much as it was “Stop giving your ‘captors’ attitude you dummy. Play to win.”.
I’m confused — it sounds like your friend enjoyed effects both to that magnitude and in that direction. Am I misunderstanding?
Yeah, that was poorly explained, sorry about that. The “magnitude” is less than it seems at a glance for a couple reasons. He wasn’t a “pot smoking slacker” because he lacked motivation to do anything, he was a “pot smoking slacker” because he didn’t have respect for the games he was expected to play. When you look at him as a 12 year old kid, you wouldn’t think of him joining the military and waking up early with a buzz cut and saying “Yes sir!”. But when you hear he joined the special forces in particular, it’s not “Wow! To think he could grow up to excel and take things seriously!”, it’s “Hm. The military aspect is a bit of a twist, but it makes sense. Kid’s definitely the right kind of crazy”.
He was always a bit extreme, it’s just that the way it came out changed—and the military training was at least as much an effect of the change as it was a cause. It didn’t come out in studying hard for straight As in college or anything that externally obvious, but there were some big changes before he joined the military. For example, he ended up deciding that there was something to the Christian values his parents tried (seemingly in vain) to instill in him, and took a hard swing from being kinda a player to deciding that he wasn’t going to have sex again until he found the woman he was going to marry and have children with (I laughed at him at the time, but he was right).
The reason I say “not necessarily in that direction” is that they weren’t simply trying to push in a consistent direction to maximize traits they deem desirable. One of the things they told him they liked about the results of his personality test was that he had a bit of a rebellious “fuck authority” streak—but also that in his case, he should probably tone it down a bit because he was over the top (and he seemed to agree). The only part of the training I can think of that’s directly relevant to this is the SERE thing, and that was more of “At least learn what it’s like to be obedient when you need to be” than anything else (and certainly wasn’t “do it unthinkingly as a terminal good”).
Also, if he did enjoy such effects as you describe, do you have any hypotheses for the mechanism? Given that such radical changes are quite rare naturally, we’d expect there to be something at play here right?
I feel like a lot of the changes have to do with “growing up and figuring out what he wants to do with his life”, and a lot of the rest following more or less naturally from valuing things differently once he knew what he was actually aiming for and what it was going to take. If you wanted to run marathons for a living, and you had to run a marathon in a certain time in order to qualify for the job, “how much of a runner you are” would probably change overnight because you would train in anticipation.
That’s not to say that the training itself wasn’t necessary or didn’t exert more force too. There’s a particular moment he told me about when things were approaching maximum shittiness. He somewhat hurt from earlier training, carrying more than his share of the weight, already fatigued with much left to do, no guarantee of success and all that, and to top it off it started raining unexpectedly. It’s the moments like that which are hard to properly prepare for in advance, and which really make you question your choices and whether this is actually what you want to do with your life. Because it’s not just a test you have to pass to get a comfy job, that is what the job is. So the question the training shoved his nose in and forced him to answer honestly was “This is what the job you’re asking for is really like. Do you want this?”. At the point he realized that, he started laughing because for him the answer was “Yes. I want this miserable shit”.
I think the mechanism is best understood as giving people a credible and tangible requirement to grapple with so they can’t fail to motivate themselves and can’t fail to understand what’s needed—and of course, selecting only for the people who can make it through. Throw someone in the same training camp when they don’t want to be there, and I don’t think you get positive results. Take people who can’t meet requirements and I think you’re likely to end up teaching the wrong thing there too. But if your whole culture enforces “No dating until you wear the bullet ant gloves without whining”, then I think you get a bunch of men who can handle physical pain without breaking down because there was never a choice to not suck it up and figure it out.
I like the model you’re developing here as an intuitively plausible explanation of akrasia. However, I think the comparison of BUD/S to, say, ritual scarification or bullet-ant gloves isn’t strong enough to support your theory.
This point about BUD/S isn’t obviously correct to me. Something like 75% of candidates drop out without completing the course. This is strong evidence to me that BUD/S primarily selects for whatever it’s designed to optimize for (whether intentionally or unintentionally) rather than endowing it.
At least as of 1981, a major part of the weeding-out was occurring fairly early in the course:
(page v). An average 20% of the attrites who passed the screen quit during Hell Week (page v), three weeks into the actual course, and as high as 36% did in two of the classes studied (page 18). If BUD/S cultivated traits rather than selecting for them, I would expect the dropouts to be more evenly distributed. You could observe that many of the attrites during the indoctrination period failed the physical screening test, but then we have to determine how well conscientiousness correlates with passing the screen...
Admittedly, those statistics don’t differentiate between medical attrition and voluntary attrition, which were each about 40% of total attrition.
This study by the Navy doesn’t seem to support your claim that BUD/S makes people conscientious to the extent you suggest. SEALs seem to be somewhat, but not hugely, above civilian average on the conscientiousness scale (page 10). Somewhat contra my arguments, this observational study admits that it could not rule out the possibility that BUD/S increases conscientiousness (page 11).
This study by RAND indicates (page 11) that the Air Force Research Laboratory concluded that higher-than-average conscientiousness was predictive of success in the Combat Controller course (a component of the Air Force’s special operations side). Combat Controllers work alongside other branches’ special forces people, so presumably they need some of the same special sauce in order to succeed. CCT school is much shorter than BUD/S, I admit, but it’s some evidence that conscientiousness is a cause, not an effect, of success in Special Forces.
I think the most favorable claim you could make based on BUD/S is “To the extent that high conscientiousness is required for a BUD/S candidate’s success in the course and as a SEAL, only 25% of the candidates either have the requisite conscientiousness at the start of the course or develop it during the course before the course selects against their then-current level of conscientiousness.”
[edit: changed “SEALS” to “BUD/S” in the first graf]
Thank you for offering feedback! The study you mentioned also references another that may indicate that further studies could be helpful to determine whether there is an effect “The results of McDonald, et al. (1988) suggest, inconclusively, that some personality changes may occur during SEAL training” (p 12). Generally speaking, your criticism is well-taken; I agree that the SEAL example is a difficult one because of the strong selection effects. Generally speaking, one should a priori expect more composite conscientiousness in any elite group (except maybe among artists?). One would have to diff-in-diff things to empirically determine an added training-based effect.
My main qualm with the selection argument is it might elide differences between sub-traits of conscientiousness. “The average SEAL is also more persistent, reliable, and scrupulous, viewing life as a series of task- oriented challenges,” whereas BUD/S seems only to select for one of these sub-traits: persistence. Given that there is status associated with being a SEAL, we might expect Berkson’s Paradox to actually lead SEALS to be somewhat lower in the unselected sub-traits (task-orientation, reliable, scrupulous). Since this is not the case, we might adopt a null hypothesis wherein we expect that there is some add-on effect from training itself.
That being said, you’re right that this is very far from conclusive. I suspect it would only really be compelling to those who personally witnessed the rapid shift in personality consequent to elite military training in an acquaintance. I count myself among this group, but recognize it may not exactly be a large % of the LW community — hopefully there the convergent cultural evolution argument holds a bit more weight?
I kinda fit that. I know someone who went from a “pot smoking slacker” to “elite and conscientious SOF badass”, which kinda looks like what you’re talking about from afar.
However, my conclusions from actually talking to him about it all before, during (iirc?), and after are very different. The training seems to be very very much about selection, everyone who got traumatized was weeded out, and things like “reliable, and scrupulous, viewing life as a series of task- oriented challenges” were all selected for.
The training did have some effects, but not to that magnitude, not by that mechanism, and not necessarily even in that direction.
Thanks for offering this insight! Could you clarify how those things are selected for in training? I am actually struggling to imagine how they could be selected for in a BUD/S context — so sharing would be helpful!
Also, you say that the training had effects but “not to that magnitude … not necessarily even in that direction.” I’m confused — it sounds like your friend enjoyed effects both to that magnitude and in that direction. Am I misunderstanding?
Also, if he did enjoy such effects as you describe, do you have any hypotheses for the mechanism? Given that such radical changes are quite rare naturally, we’d expect there to be something at play here right?
(Army special forces, not SEALs)
Scrupulosity: They had some tough navigation challenges where they were presented with opportunities to attempt to cheat, such as using flashlights or taking literal shortcuts, and several were weeded out there.
Reliability: They had peer reviews, where the people who couldn’t work well with a team got booted. Depends on what exactly you mean by “reliability”, but “we can’t rely on this guy” sounded like a big part of what people got dinged for there.
“Viewing life as a series of task- oriented challenges” seems like a big part of the attitude that my friend had that helped him do very well there, even if a lot of it comes through as persistence. Some of it is significantly different though, like in SERE training where the challenge for him wasn’t so much “don’t quit” so much as it was “Stop giving your ‘captors’ attitude you dummy. Play to win.”.
Yeah, that was poorly explained, sorry about that. The “magnitude” is less than it seems at a glance for a couple reasons. He wasn’t a “pot smoking slacker” because he lacked motivation to do anything, he was a “pot smoking slacker” because he didn’t have respect for the games he was expected to play. When you look at him as a 12 year old kid, you wouldn’t think of him joining the military and waking up early with a buzz cut and saying “Yes sir!”. But when you hear he joined the special forces in particular, it’s not “Wow! To think he could grow up to excel and take things seriously!”, it’s “Hm. The military aspect is a bit of a twist, but it makes sense. Kid’s definitely the right kind of crazy”.
He was always a bit extreme, it’s just that the way it came out changed—and the military training was at least as much an effect of the change as it was a cause. It didn’t come out in studying hard for straight As in college or anything that externally obvious, but there were some big changes before he joined the military. For example, he ended up deciding that there was something to the Christian values his parents tried (seemingly in vain) to instill in him, and took a hard swing from being kinda a player to deciding that he wasn’t going to have sex again until he found the woman he was going to marry and have children with (I laughed at him at the time, but he was right).
The reason I say “not necessarily in that direction” is that they weren’t simply trying to push in a consistent direction to maximize traits they deem desirable. One of the things they told him they liked about the results of his personality test was that he had a bit of a rebellious “fuck authority” streak—but also that in his case, he should probably tone it down a bit because he was over the top (and he seemed to agree). The only part of the training I can think of that’s directly relevant to this is the SERE thing, and that was more of “At least learn what it’s like to be obedient when you need to be” than anything else (and certainly wasn’t “do it unthinkingly as a terminal good”).
I feel like a lot of the changes have to do with “growing up and figuring out what he wants to do with his life”, and a lot of the rest following more or less naturally from valuing things differently once he knew what he was actually aiming for and what it was going to take. If you wanted to run marathons for a living, and you had to run a marathon in a certain time in order to qualify for the job, “how much of a runner you are” would probably change overnight because you would train in anticipation.
That’s not to say that the training itself wasn’t necessary or didn’t exert more force too. There’s a particular moment he told me about when things were approaching maximum shittiness. He somewhat hurt from earlier training, carrying more than his share of the weight, already fatigued with much left to do, no guarantee of success and all that, and to top it off it started raining unexpectedly. It’s the moments like that which are hard to properly prepare for in advance, and which really make you question your choices and whether this is actually what you want to do with your life. Because it’s not just a test you have to pass to get a comfy job, that is what the job is. So the question the training shoved his nose in and forced him to answer honestly was “This is what the job you’re asking for is really like. Do you want this?”. At the point he realized that, he started laughing because for him the answer was “Yes. I want this miserable shit”.
I think the mechanism is best understood as giving people a credible and tangible requirement to grapple with so they can’t fail to motivate themselves and can’t fail to understand what’s needed—and of course, selecting only for the people who can make it through. Throw someone in the same training camp when they don’t want to be there, and I don’t think you get positive results. Take people who can’t meet requirements and I think you’re likely to end up teaching the wrong thing there too. But if your whole culture enforces “No dating until you wear the bullet ant gloves without whining”, then I think you get a bunch of men who can handle physical pain without breaking down because there was never a choice to not suck it up and figure it out.