Positive Psychology Goes to War
chronicle.com
chronicle.com
Note that neuroscience has marched on since then, and the original model explained here essentially got it backward, but people still tend to cite it as though it's authoritative. Later research suggests that passivity is the default, and exposure to prolonged aversive stimuli inhibits the process of learning to take action [1]. Seligman subsequently shifted his focus to "learned optimism" (hence the book title).
The older I get, the more I understand part of the reason its awful being old is you get to see society make grand mistakes, over and over
it lists "modulating emotional state" as a long-term capability. if positive psychology is falling out of favor, it's because it's been superceded, not because they realized it doesn't work for preventing PTSD or whatever. they don't give a shit about that. just ask any veterans' advocate group trying to get the government even to acknowledge that there is a problem.
Ask any advocacy group whether the government and/or industry is doing "enough" and you'll always get the same answer.
But clearly some people at the VA care. Just go ask the researchers at the San Francisco VA Medical Center. PTSD is one of their main areas of research, which would be an odd way to spend their time if the government didn't recognize PTSD as a serious condition.
What soldiers dont realize is they join a group that pays them quickly and discard them as fast as they're useless, like say a blind bus driver would be. And that's fine and normal.
Now the trick is soldiers might have misunderstood patriotic propaganda, ideals of national defense etc that are marketing tool for the clients who pay taxes for the various program the military sells them.
A good soldier should choose his army wisely, understand when the contract will end and that it will be it, and prepare a post-army plan from the beginning.
Otherwise they just look like whiny morons who believed an ad for children, joined a group paid at steep price by clients and then turn back after the contract was duly completed "but, but, I gave my life for you": you gave nothing, you signed and you got paid.
Yes, people are "tricked" by propaganda, and yes, morally we do owe something to those people we successfully "tricked". If we had to pay a market rate for an army, things would go very poorly for us.
i recently learned special ops dogs are put down after they're too old, but soldiers get the chance to adopt them. the soldiers adopt them because a soldier, even a special ops guy who has been turned into a killing machine, is a whole human. they can't utilize the dog, but they adopt it anyway.
If you hung out with more former military dudes you'd be surprised how many of them like me there are.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
I'm not of that opinion, my point is that the US military hasn't reached their 'fighting terrorism' objective, and they might have made things worse for one of their allies (this being a motivation to stay).
This is the bit I take exception to. I agree it is commonplace, hence "normal". But fine?!?
But there used to be such a thing where longstanding association brought loyalty. Where a partnership could evolve to realise an imbalance of outcomes and react to correct it.
"Take what you can" should NOT be the overriding narrative.
I don't want high levels of cynicism to be required - to be normal - for any basic interaction in the world.
I want honesty, compassion and loyalty to be a thing. Especially from a government to it's citizens.
So I don't think it is "fine".
A government is too abstract to be compassionate or loyal, and will only remain honest as long as some cynicism remains.