ollie wrote:
structure is the key which your brief outline ignores, either through it's brevity, or ignorance
in the army, for instance, it's not the 'training' or 'discipline' that gives an 'uncanny ability to work effectivly' but structure, the training and disciplne are just there to get the soilders to submit to the system of control, the command structure
I plead temporary ignorance.
Structure was a concept I was thinking of but I couldn't seem to place the right word to it. I make several references to the idea without using the actual term. Thanks for the input I will probably go back and modify the original to use the word when I meant to.
Quote:
the human mindset is also altered in a structured system, in order to invent a structure for peoplet o follow a mindset that works with it also has to be invented (and implimented) in order for them to coordinate and work together, in the millitary example, if the command structure and it's orders are to be followed then all involved have to be used to doing so
I touch on this in the two paragraphs I just added. I will send you the amended copy later just to see if this addresses it properly. Basically I just talk about how willingness to actually work as a group is something of an assumed condition for the law.
Quote:
the improvments in this area have not been 'a gradual movement towards smaller and smaller scale tactics' but have rather been the exact opposite, larger and more mixed armies are acting with far more control and speed than ever before due to the refinment and expanding of the structure of the system of control. 100 years ago each soldier had to know how to look after himself on the parade ground and in the field, larger tactics and objective issues were looked after entirely by higher officers and commanders, even junior officers knew little more than the men they were commanding, as such if an officer was somehow removed from the system the chain of command broke down and the men were left to fend for themselves untill brought back into the system of another officer, they were rarely expected to take any action or make any decision without specific orders from above, ie they were all but removed from the structure.
I was thinking of this in two ways.
On the one hand once a group is given its objective they are intended to use their net intellect to solve it however possible. In this sense the tactics have gotten smaller since each group is more adept at solving the problems and completing its objective.
However the presence of figureheads has also allowed for several levels of groups. In this sense there is increased coordination between separate groups thus allowing many more to work together towards a common goal.
I understand what you are saying though, I will change the wording to better reflect what I meant and know see.
Quote:
if today's training and communication was used 100 years ago then you would get very simlar results, equally the other way around, if you cut a ww1 platoon in half it would be very doubtful that they would suddenly become better fighters, tactitions, trench diggers etc unless you also added extra training at both officer command and other rank levels to go with it
That was my exact point though. Platoons are arranged at exactly the decline point, or rather at the average decline point for the army. Any smaller or larger and they would become less effective (in most cases).
Quote:
the reason that demonstrations crack up is in part answered by the above, structure is needed at any level of human interaction, the bigger the interaction becomes the more needed that structure is, also the mindset of the people is the other factor, in the armed forces this mindset is invented and implanted (traditions, training etc) in a demonstration it is far more fluid and unfocused and more open to suggestion and influence than a more solid one, crowd dynamics is a huge area of research because of the near total lack of 'created' structure they have other than the 'raw' humanity that makes up the crowd, a vague agenda of protest (for instance) can suddely become one of violence, or of defeat, just as quicky with the right activation words or events. however in a well structured system only pre-ordained events or commands will trigger an event
I see what you are touching on. My law more applies to completely unprepared groups; all they have is a problem or objective. There is no prearranged structure. The law also relates to their ability to
create structure or atleast keep themselves on task.
Quote:
this is how political consensus is built, by unitign and directing a group of people, if control of smaller groups is more effective than control of larger ones, how have countries grown so large and power moved to democratic and republican (small d and r) governments in most leading world nations? if control of smaller groups is more effective then we'd be at the ww1 platoon level of one man at the top of the platoon being at the bottom of the structure of control, the 30 men below him being nothing but pawns. today the structure extends down past the previous controllers to new, lower level ones
the group is not made smaller, the system of control is made larger and better. a group without an effective or active system of control is a group on the edge of chaos. the larger the group the bigger and better this structure needs to be. not that you are ignoring this but i thought i should point it out.
Haha, I think we sort of came to the same concept. I address some of this (albeit much less completely and properly) in what I wrote about the figurehead factor.
This is why I mentioned that the decline point varies greatly. People have been applying this theory and as a result working to increase the decline point for years. They just haven't put words to it. Or maybe they have and I just have never heard of it.
Okay I will adjust my write up sometime soon. Thank you greatly for you input ollie you helped me to clarify my thoughts alot.