|
|
|
|
|
|
by endtime
5345 days ago
|
|
|
The OP said "Org X has property P." You responded with "Org Y does not have property P, and Org Y is like Org X." I claim the second half of that - that things that are true about the IDF are likely to be true about the US military - cannot be assumed. Even ignoring the significant cultural differences between the two countries, there are differences in the demographics the militaries themselves are composed of. |
|
|
I was making a claim about large organizations that depend on loyalty, not even specifically military organizations.
So, the specific difference between military organizations and cultures are neatly excluded.
The pattern (of which I gave a specific example) is:
Person X in large org Y claims something is true for ALL members of org Y, based on X's personal experience.
I submit that humans being what they are and organizations being what they are, it's more likely that there are bad behaviours that are tolerated in sub-organizations of Y even if they violate the officially stated rules.
TL;DR Without perfect knowledge it's better to assume that something somewhere is going wrong than to assume that nothing anywhere is going wrong.
A lot of science, engineering and process control basically boils down to this. Why do we forget it when dealing with human systems?