How did they accomplish the rarest of military feats?

[coberst]

How did they accomplish the rarest of military feats?

The people, who made up Israel and considered for centuries to be non fighters, were surrounded on three sides and facing a far superior enemy “accomplished the rarest of military feats”, they shattered the enemy forces “within a given time and with an absence of blunder”.

Fighting that began in May of 1948 ended in January 1949 when an armistice was signed. The IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) realized that they had “won a state but not the peace”.

The major surprise was the performance of the “espresso” generation; given this name because they were considered to have discarded the traditional Jewish ideals while lazing about drinking espresso in the local cafes. It was this generation that, when challenged and well led, performed this “rarest of military feats”.

From what I have read there is a small (35%) absolute difference in the intellectual potential between extremes in normal humans. When we examine specific individuals we can detect a gigantic difference (1000%?) in accomplishment. When we compare Winston Churchill with the others we see this difference and when we compare the Israeli nation in this situation with other nations we see this difference.

The difference is illuminated not only when comparing one person with another or one nation with another but it is startling in the difference in accomplishment of humans in matters of technology versus matters of ‘reasoning together’.

We live in two very different worlds; a world of technical and technological order and clarity, and a world of personal and social disorder and confusion. We are increasingly able to solve problems in one domain and increasingly endangered by our inability to solve problems in the other.

Science solves puzzles. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.

Science uses instrumental rationality to solve puzzles. Instrumental rationality is a systematic process for reflecting upon the best action to take to reach an established end. The obvious question becomes ‘what mode of rationality is available for determining ends?’ Instrumental rationality appears to be of little use in determining such matters as “good” and “right”.

There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems. The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life” are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved using deductive and inductive reasoning.

In summary:

Humans differ greatly in achievement even though potential as measured by intellectual capacity is small.

Humans perform grandly in matters of technology but are wimps in performance in matters communication and reasoning together.

I find this to be a puzzlement? Do you have any answers?

Quotes from Practicing History by Barbara Tuchman

[tjakey]

Nothing rare or mysterious about it. Israel had the complete and unqualified support of the US, holder of the largest and most destructive nuclear force in history. After that you lost me.

[premjan]

Definitely I bet Israeli mythology subscribes to the notion that their high IQ makes them nationalistic supermen. But the reality isn't that simple.

[Jobar]

How did they accomplish the rarest of military feats?

The people, who made up Israel and considered for centuries to be non fighters, were surrounded on three sides and facing a far superior enemy “accomplished the rarest of military feats”, they shattered the enemy forces “within a given time and with an absence of blunder”.

Fighting that began in May of 1948 ended in January 1949 when an armistice was signed. The IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) realized that they had “won a state but not the peace”.

The major surprise was the performance of the “espresso” generation; given this name because they were considered to have discarded the traditional Jewish ideals while lazing about drinking espresso in the local cafes. It was this generation that, when challenged and well led, performed this “rarest of military feats”.

A large part of it, I'm sure, is that their enemies were (and still are) nowhere near as technologically accomplished as are the Israelis. From what I've read, Muslims trust more in the will of Allah than they do in proper maintenance and careful planning. If wars were fought as they were prior to the twentieth century, I have little doubt that the Israelis would have been slaughtered to the last man, woman and child, probably before I was born; but wars are *not* fought that way. Most Muslim states in the Mideast seem unable to effectively wield the weapons of high-tech warfare- and the Israelis are masters at it.

The rest of your post seems to be asking why it is that this profound difference in ability to deal with technology exists- but it may be you're looking for something else entirely. You need to focus your questions better.

[Valheru]

The arab countries may have had bigger armies on the borders, but the average arab soldier was illiterate and poorly trained. Given that Israel struck semi-preemptively at the Golan Heights, as well as destroying most of the Egyptian air force while it was still on the ground (through clever misdirection it might be added, as well) played a big role in their successful defense.

It had nothing to do with intellectual capacity or doctrine, really. The 'lites knew it was coming, and acted accordingly.

[Valheru]

Nothing rare or mysterious about it. Israel had the complete and unqualified support of the US, holder of the largest and most destructive nuclear force in history. After that you lost me.

The U.S influence in the 6-day war was minimal at best. Isreal didn't have the F-15s and F-16s and Kfirs and massive materiel support then, that they have today. The fact that they were able to capture and utilise abandoned Russian equipment played a big role.

[Eudaimonist]

I find this to be a puzzlement? Do you have any answers?

Yes.

In one case, one is dealing with "nature" (metals, plastics, computer chips, etc) which behave as we expect given the conditions that we impose.

In the other case, we are dealing with other people, who are self-determining beings. People don't necessarily act as you personally may want them to, no matter how diplomatic, charismatic, or dialectical you are. You cannot engineer society as you can engineer a computer chip. Societies defeat the engineering mindset.

My point is that the degrees of challenge are very different between the two spheres of endeavor. It's not that we are better at technology than at getting along with other people. It is that creating technologies is easier than getting along with other people. The degree of challenge is different.



eudaimonia,

Mark

[LoneWolf]

Israel had the better trained and better equiped military. Let's not overthink it.

[Ray Moscow]

How did they accomplish the rarest of military feats?


God's chosen people, obviously (He just was looking elsewhere during the whole Holocaust thing, apparently.)

Seriously, is it so hard to believe that a better equipped and organised military would win?

[Preno]

I see no mention of SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) in a coberst OP. How is that possible??

[LoneWolf]

I see no mention of SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) in a coberst OP. How is that possible??

It's implied.

[DMB]

As a former school mistress, I would say that there is a huge difference between someone of IQ 70 and someone of IQ 130. I have had to teach both, and IMO there is no comparison. So I don't accept your premise that there is only a small difference between normal human beings.

I would also need to be convinced that in what you apparently mean by "real life" problems rationality has no useful role.

[coberst]

As a former school mistress, I would say that there is a huge difference between someone of IQ 70 and someone of IQ 130. I have had to teach both, and IMO there is no comparison. So I don't accept your premise that there is only a small difference between normal human beings.

I would also need to be convinced that in what you apparently mean by "real life" problems rationality has no useful role.

The following is the complete context for the phrase "real life":

There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems. The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life” are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved using deductive and inductive reasoning.

Most problems we have (real problems) are communicative action problems. These are dialogical problems. They are problems that have no "correct answer" there are either bad answers or good answers or better answers. They are relationship problems were two or more humans must reason together and find an acceptable answer together.

[Hex]

Real life problems cannot be solved using deductive and inductive reasoning.
(bolding mine)

Proof, please. :hmm:

I find that many of my 'real life' problems do much better with reasoning as a base.

[coberst]

Real life problems cannot be solved using deductive and inductive reasoning.
(bolding mine)

Proof, please. :hmm:

I find that many of my 'real life' problems do much better with reasoning as a base.



Human discourse seldom goes beyond adolescent styled discussion, debate, or argument. Intellectually, judging by our discourse, few Americans have the sophistication to undertake dialogue. I am 74 years old and have never experienced dialogue either as a participant or as a spectator. Our discourse seldom takes us beyond tacit (only a vague feeling) knowledge.

I am convinced that until we can dialogue we will never be safe from self destruction and perhaps even destruction of the planet for any life forms.

Few Americans are prepared to dialogue. Dialogue is much different from discussion and debate. To dialogue requires much preparation and our educational system have not prepared us for the practice of dialogue.

Our educational system is almost completely dedicated to rote teaching. Our system is almost totally a system of teaching by telling. Why is this so?

A didactic technique of educating young people is the most efficient way of inculcating facts into the memory of children. It seems to me that it is necessary to teach facts to children as quickly and as efficiently as possible during their early years.

It is vital that we have knowledge of many and varied types of algorithms. The more our lives are controlled by technology the more algorithms we must know.

However, there are no known algorithms for many problems that we face daily. Where we fail to have algorithms we must find ways to facilitate understanding.

How does the Socratic technique, or as it is more often called the dialogue method, enhance understanding by a student?

A classroom that is focusing on a dialogue technique of instruction would be one wherein there would be the usual teacher and a number of pupils. A question or a matter of interest would be introduced and pupils would be asked to give their opinion on the matter. Each student voicing a point of view would be subject to questions by members of the class and the instructor and each would be expect to defend the opinion as best they can. Such a class program would require, in many cases that the students come to class well prepared and ready to become an active participant.

The subject might be the American war in Iraq, for example. One can imagine in such a case that there would be many different points of view. Some students might be from homes wherein varying political affiliations might be held. Some students may be Muslims or Jews of Protestants. Such a question would elicit many and strongly held views. The views of all students would be subjected to questions focusing upon the quality of the argument supporting a view and perhaps questions that might focus upon the biases exposed by the view. Assumptions would be examined and questioned. The whole process is directed toward establishing a critical habit of thought in all students.

[Hex]

I think that you far underestimate dialog as a means of communication. Anthropologists have been studying the dialectic paradigm for a couple of decades, and it can be seen as mediating actions under the most mundane circumstances, let alone the 'important' or 'large-scale' ones.

How, where, and why people communicate alters their future understandings and actions (and those of uninvolved witnesses too), and helps to make cultures more or less rigid in the face of change. All the different views and means of expressing them work in on the cognitive maps of others, consciously or not.



Which, while really interesting, doesn't address whether or not 'real life' problems can or "cannot be solved using deductive and inductive reasoning." ;)

[DMB]

I can't say anything about American school education, but in my experience from teaching in Europe decades ago, the model where teachers attempted to stuff children full of facts was abandoned a long time ago.

[coberst]

I can't say anything about American school education, but in my experience from teaching in Europe decades ago, the model where teachers attempted to stuff children full of facts was abandoned a long time ago.


Good for Europe! American schools still each what and not how to think.