# Psychological stress in training.



## Gayson (19 Nov 2005)

I'm doing a research proposal assignment for a social psychology class I'm taking at college.

I have to prepare a research proposal on a subject of my choice.  This proposal must include articles relevant to the study.

My topic of research is how mental stress effects the performance of a task conducted by the subject.  Would the subject work faster or slower?  Would the subject work more effeciently or make more errors than usual.

I came up with my idea while I was fondly recalling some show parades during my basic a couple of years ago.

I have searched Army.ca but really haven't found anything of much use.

I was wondering if, the CF had any studies or articles on the psychological effects caused on a student when put under stress on course, mostly specific to instantaneous effects like those I have defined above.  I figure that the CF would have a reason why we train soldiers the way we do other then that of some course officers.

Are any such articles or studies by the CF on this subject available on the DIN (I don't have access myself but if I new where to look my unit would probably help me get it) or public domain?  Has anyone seen such documents in the CF?


----------



## paracowboy (19 Nov 2005)

send me a pm Monday morning to remind me, and I'll search the DIN at lunch time. Maybe I can find something. Or I can just go pester the Ossifer-types. They'd be likely to know of any. 'Specially the CO. He's a cerebral kinda fella.


----------



## Gayson (19 Nov 2005)

Thanks paracowboy.


----------



## paracowboy (19 Nov 2005)

I live but to serve. I give and give...it hurts, and I give a little more.
Seriously, remind me Monday.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Nov 2005)

Check with these folks: http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/home_e.html .  I know that a few decades back the joint staff course was designed with stress peaks and valleys (as most such courses are) - the students were briefed, on arrival, on the whys and wherefores.

Another potential source is: http://www.rmc.ca/academic/arts/milpsych_e.html .

As a general rule military leadership courses, especially, ought to be designed to see how people react under different levels of stress.  In military skills courses it is also important to see if candidates can perform the required tasks under realistic, highly stressed, combat conditions.

General Hillier's recent remarks reminding Canadians, including military personnel, that the Canadian Forces are not the civil service is important.  Sailors, soldiers and aviators need to be trained to do some very complex tasks - some requiring a great deal of analytical thought - under conditions which, quite simply, rarely exist in civilian occupations other than e.g. firefighting.

Many, many years ago a rather _Colonel Blimpish_ looking (and sounding) general was invited to speak at a major luncheon club on the subject of 'The military mind'.  (One could almost imagine the snickers amongst the '70_ish_ business school types who extended the invitation.)  He appeared in best bib and tucker, red face, red tabs and a chest full of ribbons and said something like: _"There is a military mind.  It is one which is conditioned to make real life and death decisions under conditions of noise, stress and real, physical and mental fear.  These decisions must always be made in too little time and with too little information.  Procrastination is never an option; mistakes are common but errors in judgement must be rare - or too many young men die before breakfast.  Having made those life and death decisions, being certain that one could have done better "if only" one must lie down, get a few, too few hours of dreamless sleep and start the whole process over again.  Are any of you up to it?"_


----------



## Slim (19 Nov 2005)

Quote from a recruiting/training document;

"The use and/or application of psycholgical stress in training has been discontinued due to the amount of psychological stress involved in the application...!"Good luck on your paper. ;D

Slim


----------



## KevinB (19 Nov 2005)

Everyone will have their own personal points where the input stress will stip being helpful and overcome them.

 Look thru Grossman's "On Combat"

IIRC there are points about this -- as well it has been found that individuals learn very differently under stress - deeply ingraining some of the lessons/actions etc. - but not necessarily all.


----------



## Gayson (19 Nov 2005)

Thanks everyone for your posts, all very helpful.

Documentation I am looking for in particular should be on how candidates react to stress on course.  Though articles on stress in combat would be helpful, they do not cover reaction to stress in a controlled environment because battle is a chaotic event.  

My research proposal relies on reactions caused in an controlled laboratory like environment, course is my best bet because instructors have control on the stress applied to candidates.

My proposal relies on 2 variables:

Independent variable: Time limits on the task and the difficulty on the task itself
Dependant variable:  The subjects stressed gauged by the amount of errors and how efficiently they work.

Negative reinforcement would be used when the subject fails or does poorly in a task, this is to ensure that they "want" to do well and thus feel stressed at the prospect of failure.

How would this apply to a course?

Candidates are being show paraded with inspections:

Independent variable:  They have a limited time to arrange and present their kit to standard prescribed by the instructor

dependant variable:  Candidates make mistakes as they're freaking out (missing loops in their boots when lacing up, forgetting small details, even putting their boots on before pants, yes I've done that before!), also how efficiently they work or even how well they work together under stress.

negative reinforcement for failure, push-ups / more parades.



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> Everyone will have their own personal points where the input stress will stip being helpful and overcome them.



You have raised an intersting point I have not considered.  So far I have hypothesized that perfomance would decrease as stress increases forming somewhat of a postive linear or curved shape relationship.  Some people work well under a certain amount of stress and so their performance would increase with stress for a duration of the testing.

I'm going to have to add this point to the limitations section of my paper, thanks KevinB!


----------



## 3rd Horseman (19 Nov 2005)

I'm not sure how this will help but it seems applicable to your paper.

   During the early 90s when they clamped down on the stress that could be applied during training the CLC school in Europe which I was commanding at the time had to develop a way to stress the students without the old tactics. End result was as follows.

  Students were sent on a 7 day ex that would use the first 2 days to sleep deprive, increase hunger, wear down through exposure to the elements and apply a level of mental stress by giving them thinking tasks. During days 3 and 4 they would do all aspects of day 1 and 2 except the tasks would get easier. In the day 5 and 6 all would be tested on a task they were designed to fail. The stress level was at its highest and the ability to extract themselves from the fail was the test. On the final day when full exhaustion was present the tests would change to team organization leadership tests under maximun physical exertion but with simple tasks that required control of the whole team to succeed. 
  The results were from my opinion excellent, later on we were directed to shorten training and we could never get as good a result with a 5 day exercise. The key being that many can fake the attitude thing and food thing for 3 days and hold on for the day 5 but 7 days was a wonder day people collapsed or rose to the occasion. Any longer and errors would occur that would achieve no training value or would start manifesting as soldiers turning off.

For what its worth.


----------



## Gayson (19 Nov 2005)

during day 3 and 4, how did the students perform with the easier tasks?  Did they do better since the tasks were easier, or worse since they were more exhausted?


----------



## stukirkpatrick (19 Nov 2005)

> Negative reinforcement would be used when the subject fails or does poorly in a task, this is to ensure that they "want" to do well and thus feel stressed at the prospect of failure.



I am a bit unsure about your usage of "negative reinforcement" - negative reinforcement (easily confused, believe me  ) involves taking something bad away in order to reinforce the previous behaviour (if you want the students to keep failing, take away pushups after failure)

Do you mean to use "positive punishment"?  ie adding something bad after a behaviour you want to change (if you want students to stop failing, give them pushups or other negative stimulus after failure)

Clear as mud?  ???


----------



## Gayson (19 Nov 2005)

By negative reinforcement I mean something bad would happen as a means to make the subjects not want to fail.

Positive reinforcement would be to do something good as an award for success.


I suppose I could be mistaken in my terms though.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (19 Nov 2005)

You have the positive reinforcement def. right, just try not to think of positive and negative meaning good and bad, think of them as in math.

Basically reinforcement means you want the behaviour to stay the same, either by adding or taking something away (positive or negative) since you're "reinforcing" the behaviour

While punishment means you want the behaviour to change and are either adding or subtracting something in order to discourge the same behaviour.  



Just a term correction but it could save you some marks down the road


----------



## 3rd Horseman (19 Nov 2005)

Days 3 and 4 they performed at about the same level those that did not were marked for possible fail and those that excelled viewed to be in the top finishers. 

Negative result was to fail someone and send them packing, result was lose of acting lacking pay and possibly never to be promoted ever again. Now that is a negative result. We always looked to fail someone during each phase of the training to ensure everyone knew they could be next if they failed a task.

Positive result was to finish the course and be automatically promoted big pay raise from Cpl to MCpl back then.


----------



## Haggis (19 Nov 2005)

Having taught more leadership and trade course than I care to remember, I found that the students are the biggest source of stress.   They quite easily will mentally magnify the consequences of ther actions, partiucularly when thier actions reflect negatively on them.

I've never failed a student, but lots of student have failed my courses.  They all fail themselves, through lack of preparation, motivation, desire or skills.  I just do the paperwork.



			
				3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> We always looked to fail someone during each phase of the training to ensure everyone knew they could be next if they failed a task.



I've been "taught by" people like you.   People who make it a sport to see how many potentially good trainees they can wash out.   People who don't give a rats tail for the skill or motivation of the student or the needs of the regiments who sent them to learn something as long as they can stroke their own ego by running a "hard" course.

The way you and your kind operate, the student is more focussed on surviving the instructors than assimilating the course content.  People like you produced the leaders who made the 90's so enjoyable : for the rest of us.  And don't go telling me it was those leaders that got us through the Medak, Sarajevo, Op Storm and held IFOR together.  That was the previous generation, before the rampant Ramboizm of the training system.

You ever pulled shyte like that on one of my courses, Mr. Horse, and your keester would be in front of the Old Man so fast your watch would be 4 hours behind.

Sum up.


----------



## Gayson (19 Nov 2005)

Kirkpatrick said:
			
		

> You have the positive reinforcement def. right, just try not to think of positive and negative meaning good and bad, think of them as in math.
> 
> Basically reinforcement means you want the behaviour to stay the same, either by adding or taking something away (positive or negative) since you're "reinforcing" the behaviour
> 
> ...



Thanks for the correction, there are more than just marks on the line here.

The Teacher had announced that the person with the best research proposal will get $200 from her.  She said to think of it as the research funding.


----------



## Scants (20 Nov 2005)

Here is a link to an article by Col. Bernd Horn.  In the section on "controlling fear" he discusses the benefits of realistic training, education, etc.  
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/vol5/no2/PDF/Leadership_e.pdf

Another is the article "Fearlessness and Courage: A Laboratory Study of Paratrooper Veterans of the Falklands War" by McMillan and Rachman, British Journal of Psychology (1987). It is a study comparing stress response and fear/fearlessness between bomb-disposal operators and paras.  Training was given as a possible reason for lower stress response in the paras. You should be able to get this article from your school library.
Hope this helps a bit.

Scants


----------



## Dirt Digger (20 Nov 2005)

Do a google search for the term, "stress inoculation".  

Basically, exposing a person to a small controlled stress after being taught stress coping techniques.  This in turn will allow them to mentally cope with a similar stressor of greater magnitude, because they've already experienced it in the past.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (20 Nov 2005)

If you needed to show the importance of stress research in training by comparing it to operational examples, there is an interesting volume of "Dispatches" (Vol 10 No. 1, February 2004) called "Stress Injury and Operational Deployments" if you can track it down through your unit - it talks about Stress, "Combat Stress Reaction" and symptoms and treatment techniques that can possibly prevent PTSD forming (however this is not always possible).

Granted, this would probably be useful only if you are proposing a military related experiment, but it does show the extremes of stress that can occur, and it does include examples of types of training that can be done to help reduce stress.


----------



## KevinB (20 Nov 2005)

I would be curious to knwo if any studies have been done about the chnage in range practices - where we used to have troops in the butts changing targets with the the ATS ranges this no longer happens -- I wonder if the rounds passing over the butts where in some what stress inocculating?


----------



## Gayson (20 Nov 2005)

KevinB,

we still have troops in the butts changing targets, I did it on my PW3 shoot.

I didn't really find it stressful.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Nov 2005)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Having taught more leadership and trade course than I care to remember, I found that the students are the biggest source of stress.   They quite easily will mentally magnify the consequences of ther actions, partiucularly when thier actions reflect negatively on them.
> 
> I've never failed a student, but lots of student have failed my courses.   They all fail themselves, through lack of preparation, motivation, desire or skills.   I just do the paperwork.
> 
> ...



BZ Haggis! I'm glad the day of the "Eat your Own" courses is passing. It's still not gone, but it's getting there. I too have seen lives and careers ruined by the egotistical, god complex, exhibited by course staff. It's a shame really, we've probably lost a lot of good soldiers to it.

3rd,

It's the posting of drivel like you do that gets you your ratings, including the minus from me.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (20 Nov 2005)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Having taught more leadership and trade course than I care to remember, I found that the students are the biggest source of stress.   They quite easily will mentally magnify the consequences of ther actions, partiucularly when thier actions reflect negatively on them.
> 
> I've never failed a student, but lots of student have failed my courses.   They all fail themselves, through lack of preparation, motivation, desire or skills.   I just do the paperwork.
> 
> ...



Haggis,    I was the *old man* and I can tell you it was not a sport but a responsibility to the soldiers that these young   leaders would lead into battle in the future that was the motivation to pass and fail.

      Based on the response I received COs and RSMs of the units that I returned the soldiers to they were very pleased with the result including the failures. As the staff of these schools are hand picked from all of the CF you must be on top of your game to even be interviewed to be staff let alone get the job.

    You have a point on students failing themselves you are correct for the most part. That was not and is not the intension of the looking to fail some one to increase the pressure comment it was just a good byproduct of training. Remember the course is much longer than a 7 day ex at that point in the course one can predict who will pass and fail by various means. Not all students pass a leadership course that is for a reason so that only the best rise to positions of leadership. Any instructor that thinks all 80 students that start a difficult leadership courses will pass is misguided. With that attitude you would never have passed the selection criteria to teach on a leadership course. It would appear you have a chip on your shoulder by your reaction to my post you must have had a bad go on a course maybe even mine!

    The students that we produced from the CFE JLS went on to lead soldiers in the Gulf War, Yugo, and from what I saw years later were excellent, ask one you may change your opinion. I personally am very proud of the future leaders that I produced, ever one that has my signature at the bottom of the course report I would go to war with. My failure rate was on average 35% with 10% of those medical.

   I accept your concern but it is unfounded and your approach to pose a concern with a training method is much to be desired. You could have aske why that approach was taken at that point in the course and then unloaded if you did like the methodology. If you teach leadership courses you may want to think before you unload such an attack. Many of the grads from CFEJLS are the senior NCOs and regt RSMs that lead you today. The leadership failures in the 90s were from my personnel observation not those leaders trained in the early 90s. You need to look at the training methods in the 70s and 80s for your issue, and I dont think those leaders will take kindly to your comments. The leaders trained in the 90s are those current leaders in A stan as we speak and are doing very well.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (20 Nov 2005)

Recce guy,

      Dido for you, as for Haggis, I am not of the opinion that the courses I ran were eat your own, you are missguided. Possibly you were on a course like that but not at my school. How could you even get "eat your own" out of my post you as well as Haggis are reading too much into the post with your own bitter past. 

And as for the neg tab well leadership was is never a popularity contest and if you put any stock into demote promote tabs you are in for a ruff road.

So instead of just attacking like those so called "eat your own" courses you appear to be against show some leadership and ask a question or pose a solution. It is easy to lash out but hard to lead change. 

PS I guess the whole CF training system must have been wrong back in the 90s by your post.

EDIT typo


----------



## George Wallace (20 Nov 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Recce guy,
> 
> Dido for you, as for Haggis, I am not of the opinion that the courses I ran were eat your own, you are missguided. Possibly you were on a course like that but not at my school. How could you even get "eat your own" out of my post you as well as Haggis are reading too much into the post with your own bitter past.


Well 3rd Horse

Kudos to you.   I have gone through the system in the '70s and '80s as both a Student and Instructor at the CAS.   I have seen both good and bad over the last 40 years.   If you feel the way you do; fine.   You are no more right than they are.   I have been a victim of what they say occurred.  As an Instructor I have held to one belief; to be Honest and Fair to my students.   I have seen many other Good Instructors who held the same beliefs.   I have also seen those whose Egos and Sadism have wrecked havoc on their students.   I have even had to work with some of these twits, who have been promoted two ranks above their competency and leadership abilities.

Every Course is different.   Every Instructor is different.   Every School is different.   I have seen the Armour School go from 60% Failure Rates to 0% Failure Rates.   Which extreme truly serves the Corps best?   Neither.

Then there is the "School Way" and the "Regiments Way".   Often what is taught,or not taught at the School, has to be retaught at the Regiment.   This still happens today.  

On the matter of Stress, I find that the "Kinder, Gentler Army" is promoting more stress on Tours, due to the mully codling we have done to our Recruits.  The less stressful we make their training, the more stressful they will find Tours.


----------



## paracowboy (20 Nov 2005)

Badge Holders  : "If I let someone else pass this course, *I'm* not as special." Never mind the needed knowledge getting out to the units and improving the CF. Sad.


----------



## ZipperHead (20 Nov 2005)

I think that "a little bit of this, a little bit of that " approach is the way to handle training. I DESPISE the thought of failing someone (arbitrarily) to send a warning shot across the bow of all students. As someone mentioned earlier, I feel that students fail themselves, and the DS just put the reasons why to paper. 

I have lived through both extremes (fail a certain number of pers just to prove that the DS are "gods" and the huggy-kissy pass everyone so that nobody feels bad about themselves). Neither approach works, as nothing is being taught or retained by the students. I think that there needs to be a certain element of fear/stress, to the degree that it enhances performance, but not so much that it is counter-productive.

We need to, above and beyond anything else, train pers to be able to go to war with the skills they need. If that means someone fails a few "traces" or attacks, etc, but learn from it, and then achieve a set standard (we use the goal of "Would I want student A to be a Jr car commander/Tp ldr/Patrol Commander in my regiment, with my soldiers?" If the answer is "NO!!!", then that individual fails (that particular trace). Everyone has good days, and bad days, and there shouldn't be a crushing amount of stress placed on a person (during initial training) just to break them. Wait until they are ready before cranking it up to that degree. Obviously, if they never get to the point during the course where that is possible, recourse them, and they can try again. 

One mentality that I also hate is the "I don't want this person in my mess" mentality. It's not up to you, or me, or anyone but the person's CO, RSM, or career manager to make that decision. I'm sure more than a few capable NCO's (and officers) were run aground because somebody thought that way. There have been more than a few people I hate that I passed, and more than a few people that I like that I had to fail, but that was based on their performance, not my opinion of them. Surely they would argue this, but that's their prerogative. 

Training has to be progressive, and challenging. If someone starts out above the pass mark, make them work harder, so they leave at the best they can be. If they start out below the 60%, bring them up to at least 60%, and then push them to do their best. DS are not assesors in the driver examiner sense: they should teach, teach, and then teach some more, and then at the end, they can assess where the individual is. I hate "clipboard commandos" who do nothing more than mark a score on a sheet, and give nothing of themselves to the student. I suspect that is usually because those types have nothing (but c*ck) to give. Pathetic, really.

I do agree though, that stress has to be built into the training, at all levels, but not until the bulk of the teaching has been done, to ensure that the maximum of learning, teaching, and retention has occured. It's a difficult balance, but that is why we are paid the big bucks, and why we have people that do studies (hopefully realistic and useful ones), and why we observe other countries, industries, etc to see how they do it, because you should always try to learn from other's successes and failures, so that our soldiers don't have to suffer needlessly.

Al


----------



## paracowboy (20 Nov 2005)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> I think that "a little bit of this, a little bit of that " approach is the way to handle training. I DESPISE the thought of failing someone (arbitrarily) to send a warning shot across the bow of all students. As someone mentioned earlier, I feel that students fail themselves, and the DS just put the reasons why to paper.
> 
> I have lived through both extremes (fail a certain number of pers just to prove that the DS are "gods" and the huggy-kissy pass everyone so that nobody feels bad about themselves). Neither approach works, as nothing is being taught or retained by the students. I think that there needs to be a certain element of fear/stress, to the degree that it enhances performance, but not so much that it is counter-productive.
> 
> ...


what he said.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Nov 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Recce guy,
> 
> Dido for you,



It's "ditto". Figured a highly educated smart superninjaJTF6officer type and been everywhere, done everything, leading edge course officer kind of guy you claim to be would have known that.   However, judging from your grammar and spelling on other posts you don't, so I guess I really shouldn't expect much change. I hope, for your client's sake, you do up your real estate contracts better.

I guess the idea of you calling everyone giving you a bad rating "cowards" on the other thread was just a means for you to suss them out so you could retaliate. Go ahead, fill your boots.

Allan,

Exactly


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Nov 2005)

Jumping in from the point of view of someone who always finds themselves a candidate rather than instructor, I hate the eat your weakest man mentality.
As a friend wisely put it, if you keep eating your weakest man pretty soon theres going to be 3 people in the platoon. And it's true because there's always going to be "the weakest guy".

I've been on enough taskings & courses and a tour where this mentality was present, constantly.

Instead of students giving the course/task their 100% their more concerned about getting kicked off for a stupid reason. Had nothing to do with failing training. It was all about whether you pissed off your instructors. Whether they liked you or not.
i couldn't stand waking up every morning going ohh gee I wonder if i'll get kicked off work up training for forgetting to put my id card in my top breast pocket or cock my C7 with my left hand instead of my right hand. Instructors always used it as a threat to motivate or somehow teach. Thats the mentality I saw constantly.

The instructors who really connect with the soldiers and treat them with respect and professionalisim (Like the instructors from the leadership company in petawawa this summer) are the guys who we students will turn around and follow to hell and back just for the pride of working with them.   
Instructors who use fear do so because they lack the leadership to inspire.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (20 Nov 2005)

Recce guy,  nice of you to assist me with my typos and spell errors normally I have a secretary do that. 

   It is not about cowards for posting a demote, it is cowards for not advising the one you did, get it right if your going to cast stones.

  I don't through around revenge demotes you got one from me and until you post more crap I wont give you another. To date I have only tagged 3 demotes, they all know who they are you being the latest.

  More to the point about this thread I don't think the creator is expecting a dual of stupidity over a request for stress that occurs on course shall we get back to the point rather than chucking crap at each other?

  Re read my post it is about stress induced training through sleep deprivation, exposure to the elements, task stress and then measuring the results based on the time line over a 7 day EX in side a 60 day course. The point is that field exercises are a good way to induce stress in a candidate and the time lines of 7 days are vital to get to that point. The originator asked what was the fear inducement for the training, simple said it was the fear of failling that got a few of you wired up chill and read it in context.


----------



## Haggis (20 Nov 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Haggis,    I was the *old man*



As a captain???  

Somebody got a BS flag I can borrow??

BTW none of your kind ever failed me.

Oh, and I demoted you twice.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Nov 2005)

MODERATOR EDIT: LETS KEEP IT ON TOPIC EVERYONE OR IT WILL BE "DILDOS TO YOU"...or ditto or dido or somin'


----------



## Gayson (20 Nov 2005)

Please, I started this topic to discuss psychological stress on course,

not who demoted who.

Since leadership courses have come into the picture,

do instructors tend to place more mental stress (having to apply leadership) then physical stress?  

How do most candidates tend to react to the stresses of being given a leadership role?


----------



## 3rd Horseman (20 Nov 2005)

Haggis, I don't want to get in a tussle over this shall we stop the spat? 

      Europe had two command appointments for other than LCols, Commandant CFEJLS was one and in my case to a Capt. Lets get back to the main point of the thread shall we.

EDIT: sent while last post was sent.


----------



## Haggis (20 Nov 2005)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> Please, I started this topic to discuss psychological stress on course,
> 
> Not who demoted who.





			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> MODERATOR EDIT: LETS KEEP IT ON TOPIC EVERYONE OR IT WILL BE "DILDOS TO YOU"...or ditto or dido or somin'



Bruce: I have just exchanged PMs with the 3rd Horseman.   I will remain on topic from this point forward.

Apologies, J. Grayson, for hijacking your thread.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Nov 2005)

Might be off topic but it's interesting to see how someone being demoted on a web forum seems to cause some people psychological stress.

Maybe on a very basic level the two can be related.


----------



## Gayson (20 Nov 2005)

This paper is causing ME psychological stress.

Crappiest assignment ever.

Everyone,

I don't mind this thread going off track a bit.  The discussion of candidate stresses on course, and the debate of how they are taught has been interesting and will influence the final product of my assignment.

Bitching about forum demotions just seems a bit childish to me.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Nov 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> *We always looked to fail someone during each phase of the training to ensure everyone knew they could be next if they failed a task.*





			
				3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Re read my post it is about stress induced training through sleep deprivation, exposure to the elements, task stress and then measuring the results based on the time line over a 7 day EX in side a 60 day course.



So according to you, no matter how everyone performed, you still targeted someone for failure, to serve as an example.



			
				3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Recce guy,   nice of you to assist me with my typos and spell errors normally I have a secretary do that.



I hope you pay her very well, she's obviously quite busy.



			
				3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> I don't through around revenge demotes you got one from me and until you post more crap I wont give you another.



Maybe you should put her to work vetting your posts also. You could have used her above. That hardly makes sense.



			
				3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> simple said it was the fear of failling that got a few of you wired up chill and read it in context.



Simply said, what got me riled, was the way you were proud of being a bully and jackass. It's a good thing you are retired. We don't need this type anymore, in fact we never did.



			
				3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> More to the point about this thread *I don't think the creator is expecting a dual of stupidity * over a request for stress that occurs on course shall we get back to the point rather than chucking crap at each other?



I must concede. I am totally outgunned in the above context with you. I toss down my sword and withdraw.


----------



## paracowboy (20 Nov 2005)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> Since leadership courses have come into the picture,
> 
> do instructors tend to place more mental stress (having to apply leadership) then physical stress?


J, 
Good instructors don't "place" stress on candidates. They don't have to. The candidate will do that for themself. The instructor is there to provide the knowledge and tools for the candidate to utilize, then to assess the candidate's ability to do so effectively. A good instructor works with the candidate to assist them in successfully completing the course. He also is completely impartial in the assessment part. (With the caveat of Basic and Battle School, where you have to make judgement calls occasionally as to a candidate's emotional ability to do this job. No matter how well the student can pass the PO's or how physically fit, if he's a loon, ya gotta get rid of 'im, before he becomes a highly-trained loon.)

Part of the assessment is to judge the candidate's ability to handle the stress he places on himself. If he can't effectively deal with that, he certainly shouldn't be leading troops in battle.



> How do most candidates tend to react to the stresses of being given a leadership role?


depends entirely on the candidate. Everybody is different. Some are natural leaders - unflappable, calm, and confident (or able to appear so). Others are basket-cases.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Nov 2005)

Quote,
(or able to appear so). 

...and don't discount the importance of this line.


----------



## Armymedic (20 Nov 2005)

Not all stress in training happen in leadership type positions or leadership courses. In my world, we induce stress by imposing conditions where circumstance may outstrip time, resources, and/or training. Also knowing incorrect actions (failure) on your part will tend to impart a poor outcome (occasional death of your patient) is also an additional stressor.  

Inoculation from experience, learning from your own or others mistakes, and good mentorship usually reduces errors reoccurring when the real stress of actual no-duff casualties slaps you in the face.

The basics here are the same. The more exposure you recieve, the more difficult the practice, the less likelihood errors will happen when reality bites.

Train hard, fight easy.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (20 Nov 2005)

J,
    Not to split hairs with some other posts but there is a difference between student imposed stress and course imposed stress and both are good. You have heard from a varied group of contributors here on the thread from course staff, instructors standards and a commodant, all have there own take on what instruction and courses are all about as George said sift through and pick out what you need it is all correct just in different contexts. Para, Haggis and Recceguy all have valid comments about students placing stress on themselves not staff. That said there is a difference between skill courses and leadership courses. Both types of stress, staff induced and student induced are good and vital from my opinion. Reason being there are two different types of courses out there leadership and skills, each with different goals and needs to be successful. You can even have a single course comprise both componenets within the same course. In those courses different applications of environmental stress are required at different times to achieve the desired result. Leadership courses are fundamentally different to training courses and the approach to training is different for each.
 Training courses or skill courses are designed to teach a skill something the soldier does not have already therefore placing undue stress on the student will reduce comprehension and limit knowledge building and confidence in the task/skill completion that is mastered. In these types of courses instructors build confidence in students and assist in the achievement of the knowledge, the goal for these types of courses is a 100% pass rate. As per the old adage there are no bad students just bad instructors.
 Leadership courses set out to test a student on the application and management of skills they already posses in an environment of stress to see how they apply there skills at the limits of there capabilities and comfort levels. These courses are designed to have students self stress and applied staff stress to induce the appropriate environment to asses. These types of courses have a designed failure rate as the selection of future leaders has a defined limit of positions that a majority are striving for thus the system gets to select the best of the best. In this case there are no bad students since some were expected to fail and to fail is not a bad thing just a understanding that someone is better than you.  

You cant teach leadership just asses it. You cant asses knowledge until you teach it. Similar but subtly different. To apply the wrong method to a type of training and the result could be disastrous to soldiers in a war.

For what its worth.


----------



## Gayson (20 Nov 2005)

Thank you everyone for your posts so far.

I have taken many of the posts here into consideration while attempting to design a stress mechanism for use on the subjects.

Subjects would be performing tests under time constraints, which in itself would present some degree of stress.  I do believe that this would not be suffecient to achieve the aim of the proposed research.  

Many of you have discussed how students place themselves under stress while onn course which is a direction I am now persuing in the design of the experiment.  In every case so far military examples have been discussed, however civilians would make up the population of subects.

Originally I made this thread to get a military point of view, being something I could relate to I figured it would help me write my paper.  The wealth of knowledge and expertise displayed here has gone above and beyond what I've been looking for and I am now considering how I would apply this to a civilian setting (hacing the civies in the test stress themselves, much like candidates on a BMQ/DP2/PLQ would).

It has been stated multiple times that candidates often feel stressed at the prospect of failing the course or a PO check aswell as making errors during evaluation.

So far I have considered fear of failing the tests as a means to apply stress to the subjects, now I will be persuing the application of making errors during the test a reality aswell.

Earlier I jokingly posted that this assignment has been giving me psychological stress, I am finding it difficult to achieve the results I would like.

Never have I been in a situation where my co-workers or those below me would have stressed placed upon them by the body they work for, with the exception of the Army.  As a result I've been having difficulty designing an adequate stress mechanism that would still be moral and legal since the subjects would be civilians.  After all, I can't show parade civilians as a method of raising their stress.

Despite this, I do think that many of the fundamental methods discussed here can be possibly placed in the controlled environment I am designing.  Often in military training, soldiers are exposed to various auditory and visual ques that can stress a candidate out, such things as being screamed at while performing various tasks.

I'm thinking that the application of loud noises, and annyoying visuals can play a part in creating the stress I wish to create.

SO instructors, when applying stress on a skills course, do you find adding elements of time constraint, yelling and screaming, making threats (more punishment, push-ups, parades etc. . .) constructive?  In your experience have you found doing this a good way of evaluating a candidates skill under stress?


----------



## 3rd Horseman (21 Nov 2005)

J   

   If I may I would suggest screaming at a student is not an effective stress mechanism. Having back ground noise is good and depending on your tasks have a non involved person interupt and ask questions of nothing important of the student while they are at a critival point in the task. This is like the third radio set in a comd veh that during leadership testing is there to confuse and through off rather than be part of the assessed task. The concept of show parades and stuff like that is to keep the student occupied and expending energy and mind power when they could be resting this is done to stress them from an environmental perspective I dont hink they are effective tools except to induce stress if needed. Such as writting a memo at midnight it is part of the sleep deprivation part. Another effective assessment tool is to design a task that will achieve a failure (contrary to what you have read earlier failure is a good tool), then monitor the student as they try and get out of the failed position they are in. The stress is high and the one that can extricate themselves and how they do it is the assessment, not the failure.


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Nov 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> These types of courses have a designed failure rate as the selection of future leaders has a defined limit of positions that a majority are striving for thus the system gets to select the best of the best. In this case there are no bad students since some were expected to fail and to fail is not a bad thing just a understanding that someone is better than you.



Could you please specify for me what documents you were using that established a "defined failure rate"? Any course I have ever run was conducted in accordance with the authorized Course Training Plan (CTP) that had minimum standards but certainly allowed for every candidate to meet them. I have never seen one with a 'built-in' failure rate. This allegation will require confirmation by official document sources to be acceptable to me.


----------



## paracowboy (21 Nov 2005)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> SO instructors, when applying stress on a skills course, do you find adding elements of time constraint, yelling and screaming, making threats (more punishment, push-ups, parades etc. . .) constructive?   In your experience have you found doing this a good way of evaluating a candidates skill under stress?


time constraints is a good stress inducer, as is demanding a higher mark to "pass" (80% as opposed to 50%), and you could very well add physical exertion (running 50 meters followed by 25 push-ups).

Time constraints, no matter how lenient, cause some people to put more stress on themselves, simply because of a percieved limitation. The same holds true with a demanding a higher mark to pass. You could very well design a test that is quite easy to pass, but by saying you want 80% as opposed to 50%, it creates stress in some people, since they are accustomed to hearing 50%. And the PT creates an elevated heart rate, which the body reads as stress, even though it's physical, and not mental. The body tells the mind it's under stress, the mind then reacts accordingly.

While I don't agree with yelling or threatening candidates on course, it may prove useful to your experiment. The same with distractions such as music or flashing lights. If possible, you could combine them all with the use of a Proxima and a laptop. Flashing images automatically draw the eye and the attention wanders. More so, if they are accompanied by sound.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (21 Nov 2005)

"These courses by design"   is better choice of words.

   As you said and you are correct ever course has a CTP that is achievable by every student that meets the standard. Never seen a 100% pass on a leadership course in my entire time in the CF maybe you have. As a Comd position I would have an expected %   attrition be it medical, voluntary withdraw or fail, any deviation from those norms would cause a review of the course. I have not been in that position for some 15 years things may have changed since then, you would not find that type of data in the CTP it was part of training systems standards for the development of the course and conduct CF schools. Each week a list of failures medicals etc. would be sent into training systems and if the % was above or below the norm you would get a call to explain it. If it was well above the norm you would get an inspection visit.


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Nov 2005)

The fact that people fail courses, whether though medical RTU, training or administrative reasons, is not inherently based on the course being designed to ensure failures. Your inference that it may have been, or that you might have been in a position to influence it outside the parameters of the CTP, creates a flawed view of how courses are meant to be conducted in accordance with the training system.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (21 Nov 2005)

Tell that to the pencil neck geek that called me every week to inquire why I had a high or low failure rate and to explain it. 

Your point is well taken and I agree there was no intention to suggest the course CTP has been "designed to ensure failure" just that there is a failure rate and it is predictable.


----------



## Acorn (21 Nov 2005)

Leadership courses, especially, should have failure built in. Assessing how a leader (or potential leader) deals with failure is critical, IMO. 3rd Horseman hasn't expressed it well, but I think I agree that everyone on a leadership course *must* fail a task at some point in the course (not necessarily fail the course. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here). 

Even if the "failure" is BS, it must be applied to *all* candidates and it doesn't mean a course failure in itself.

Acorn


----------



## ZipperHead (21 Nov 2005)

I think that an element of our military culture that we HAVE to remove is the fear of failure. We treat people who fail at anything as, well, failures. I can count on one hand (even a Homer Simpson hand) how many times I have ever "failed" anything in the CF. Does that make me a super-soldier? I doubt it. I think that it just means that I tried my damnedest to pass everything thrown at me. But allowing people to fail, and not treat them like garbage, but teach them to learn from their failure would actually raise the quality of soldiers that we have.

People are so terrified of failing something (getting on the "man-eating truck") that it causes people to stay within their comfort zone, and do what they know will guarantee success. If that means they end up only learning one way to do a given task, and when there are multiple ways to actually do, we haven't really accomplished anything. Granted, some things are drills, with only ONE way to do it (by the book), and if a person just doesn't get it, even after multiple attempts, and lot's of coaching, they are done. Thanks for coming out. Try again.

Allowing people the opportunity to try different ways of doing things, even if they sometimes result in failure is way to get people to expand their horizons, trying things that might even be better than the "DS solution". As a DS, I have learned many things from my students, and told them that I appreciated the opportunity to learn from them. Everybody has different experiences, and those experiences can help them in different situations. 

I think that once people realize that it's OK to thunder in once in a while, it will take away some of the self-induced stress. Another thing that I hate is when people say "The only stress that there is placed upon you is what you place upon yourself". There are MANY different stressors, and self-stress is but only one of them. It's true that some people are "spinners" and wouldn't be successfully able to lead an ant to an ant hill, but there are other issues at play. Stress can be a good thing, as mentioned before, but it should be applied as warranted, not just a way to give c*ck for the sake of giving c*ck.

Al


----------



## 2 Cdo (21 Nov 2005)

Allan, good post. The fear of failure in the CF, in regards to leadership, is sometimes so high that we have leaders who are AFRAID to make a decision! For making a bad decision in the past they have been hammered by their leaders, thus leading them to make no decision outside the norm. I fully agree that we must encourage troops to "make a snap" and to live with the consequences. Lord knows I've made my share, good and bad! 
One should never be punished for a bad decision, one should be taught what would have been a better choice. Now before anyone starts to rip obviously we need to use some common sense. If I decide to walk my troops through a clearly marked minefield just because it is a shorter route I should be sorted out immediately! (Most troops I know would sort me out themselves! ;D)
Just remember the person who makes no decision is ALWAYS wrong!


----------



## 3rd Horseman (21 Nov 2005)

Acorn, Al and 2Cdo, good points,

   It has always been an issue of failure as a bad thing in the CF I don't subscribe to this, possibly on skill courses or recruit courses it may be but on leadership course or advanced skill courses it should never be looked upon that way. Failures on leadership courses should be seen as you tried your just not ready or able to do the next task up the chain but no reduction in the abilities that that soldier currently has. Obviously to be selected for a leadership course the soldier was in the top cut of those the RSM and CO chose to go on course.

 The issue that I laid out earlier in the thread about planned failure was a little confusing. My position is that during a point in training it is a good training activity to set up a task to fail (not to fail a student on the course nor even in that task) the result of the failed task is just the start of the assessment, it is how the soldier gets out of the failed task that is the test. Thus a failed task is not a failed EO or PO just a start point of the leadership evaluation. When the soldier completes the task which is well past the point of failure that is the end of the evaluation. To be clear all students will fail the task and all staff know it, it is just a point of stress to set the student up for the real evaluation which is the recovery not the failure. Clear as mud I assume!


----------



## ZipperHead (21 Nov 2005)

I think I am starting to see where you are going with this, 3rdHorseman. 

When we teach Battle Procedure, we give all the nuts and bolts theory, a demo in real time, and then have "interactive" practice (DS assist). The majority of the people (myself included at the time) say "No f'in way am I EVER going to get this!!!!" But after they learn all the in's and out's, and become proficient, they look back and say "That wasn't so hard!!!". But, by the same token, it should be acknowledged by all present that the "fail" trace is just that: a trace that it is acceptable to fail on. I know that I went to DEFCON5 when I was given an "impossible timing" on my 6A, because they assured us at the beginning that there wouldn't be. Well, didn't I get all pissy, and lost my focus on what I should have been doing, because to me, it was do or die time, and this isn't the time to stick it to Al!!! In hindsight, I should have focussed on getting to the task at hand, which was to work with what I had, cut out what I didn't need to do, and then do it. I passed that trace, BTW, but mainly due to a very tolerant DS, who understood my frustration (thanks Dave, wherever you are!!!!)

But again, we need a "cultural" change within the military, where it is acceptable to "fail" something, but as long as you learn something out of the endeavour, you never really failed, because you can utilize those lessons learned elsewhere. 

To some degree, a lot of our training is so easy, just so that everybody gets the same shot (i.e. nobody able to say "It isn't fair that I had 3 contacts!! Bloggins only had 2!!!! Waaa waaa waaa!!!"). Some people (myself NOT included) say that we shouldn't assess people (pass/fail), just let people go out and try it, and as long as they tried, they are successful. With certain people this would work, but I can't see it working for the majority of pers. I think that these types of courses are commonly referred to as "attendance courses", and don't have any place in leadership courses or for practical skills that are life and death.

Al


----------



## 3rd Horseman (21 Nov 2005)

Exactly....everone gets the fail trace only the DS know its the fail trace. The test is how does the student make a success of the failed trace. That is the true test of leadership not that you passed the passable trace but that you found a way to recover from a defeat. In battle ever trace starts as a pass but on contact normally becomes a potential fail it is how a leader creates a success in the face of this adversity that wins the day and reduces casualties. This is the type of training that I advocate for since the guy that learns this way will find ways in battle under the harshest of situations to clear a path to victory. It truely is the Cpl/Sgt out there on his own after contact that will win battles not the lovely drawn up plans of the officers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Nov 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> *Negative result was to fail someone and send them packing, * result was lose of acting lacking pay and possibly never to be promoted ever again. Now that is a negative result. *We always looked to fail someone during each phase of the training to ensure everyone knew they could be next if they failed a task.*



This is what you wrote and there is no mistaking the meaning. No confusion, no misunderstanding. You were not talking about what Al is now.

If you wish to say you were wrong and retract it, so be it, but don't say we were all confused and didn't get your drift. We knew exactly what you were saying.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (21 Nov 2005)

Recceguy,

      That post you point out was a response to the question,   "what was the fear motivator in the training". Well to be honest there is none other than what I said which was rather quickly delivered and is the fear motivator was the avoidance of the fail. No argument still valid. With out the fear of failure and all it brings than training would not be taken seriously. It was I might ad a flippant post but accurate.

EDIT: Retract it, change it, take it back .......Naaaaa....it was the way it was, for what its worth thats what happened and it was for the right reasons and it produced top caliber students.


----------



## Gayson (21 Nov 2005)

3rd Horsemen,

your saying then, that with an average amount of students who fail the various mods for personal reasons, stress is placed upon the remaining candidates?

I understand that candidates can fail leadership courses because they couldn't not meet the expectations given to them.  So the remaining candidates would be stressed/fearful because THEY would be worried that perhaps THEY would not meet the expectations?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (22 Nov 2005)

J,

Sorry to join the party late, but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I would argue that both physical and mental stress affects people differently.  People who worry a lot about life might do a task very well in a relaxed environment and then fall to pieces when put under the slightest stress.  Others might be bored and do poorly in an absence of stress but then turn it on when the pressure turns up.  For these folks you might find a curve where performance goes up at first as stress increases.  Peformance would eventually start to come down as stress contined to increase.  I suppose the majority would find some performance loss as stress increased but at a manageable level.  Others would see performance plummet once stress sets in.

Since I imagine that the battlefield is a fairly stressful place it would be good to know how the soldiers and leaders in it would react under stress.  It would also be handy to learn how to manage stress.  The training does, I suppose, weed out the true "stress magnets", identify the ones who thrive and give the rest the ability to at least manage their reaction to stress.  I observed this (purely antecdotaly) on Phase II.  Some very intelligent and articulate young OCdts crumbled under the strain of time contraints (as you also observed).  I can remember one fellow who was obsessed with being the top candidate (to the point of wanting our ranking listed on our shirts).  He didn't make it past week five.   :'(Too stressed.  All self-imposed.  Some panic when the clipboard comes out.   They worry about failing and worry so much that they do.  On the other hand some guys are just excited to have been given a tank for an afternoon and don't dwell on the possibilities of failure.  As Oddball says to his driver, "I want nothing but good thoughts.  No negative waves."

I seem to remember that four guys from my section of ten failed Phase II (for a variety of reasons).  Strangely, I do not remember finding that their leaving caused any stress to me.  In fact, in the case of a couple it made my life less stressful.  That being said, I felt bad for the guys who got hurt and had to leave despite their high levels of motivation and potential.  So I guess that made me sad but not stressed.  I felt stressed if I was given a warning of some kind, but I tried not to dwell on it and just tried to get on with it.

Some guys stayed up all night buffing their floors and then failed tests in the morning.  My room turned in at 2300 hrs regardless.  Sleep deprivation is perhaps more powerful than stress in terms of performance loss.  At 72 hrs I think that most people hit the wall unless they are on some kind of stimulant.  Sleep deprivation probably magnifies the negative effects of stress.

I'm sure we all have similar tales.  As an aside, I do beleive that our schools teach to the standard and not to a quota.  I worked at a training centre for three years and kept track of attrition rates.  Army needed to know the attrition rate because it had to recruit the right amount to fill the vacancies in the battalion, not because it insisted that we have a certain of amount of failures to "stress" the candidates.  We were not under a quota and if we were over or under there were no questions asked.  We kept track of failures on JNCO (CLC, PLQ or whatever its called these days) and gave feedback to the units to help them make sure their candidates were qualified.  The standard was all that mattered.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Gayson (22 Nov 2005)

2Bravo, thanks for your post.

I know where your coming from where sleep deprivation affects performance.  I spent a couple of weekends on my DP2 never sleeping once, standardizing peoples kit all night.  Looking back I think I was a fool because my academic scores would have likely been higher had I slept.

In my paper so far I have accounted for those who would deal well under stress as opposed to those who wouldn't.  I would apply a curve or line of best fit that would broadly represent the results of every subject, at the moment I believe best results can be achieved through the use of linear regression.


----------



## DG-41 (22 Nov 2005)

> I've never failed a student, but lots of student have failed my courses.  They all fail themselves, through lack of preparation, motivation, desire or skills.  I just do the paperwork.



Oh, that's lovely.  I really like that one; I'll have to steal it for myself.



> I've been "taught by" people like you.  People who make it a sport to see how many potentially good trainees they can wash out.  People who don't give a rats tail for the skill or motivation of the student or the needs of the regiments who sent them to learn something as long as they can stroke their own ego by running a "hard" course.
> 
> The way you and your kind operate, the student is more focussed on surviving the instructors than assimilating the course content



Can I get an AMEN! Holy crap on a stick, you've just described my Phase3/Phase4 course in a dozen words.

That summer, I got loaded on a course designed for 30-odd people, but manned by only 5 students. The way this is supposed to work, the course covers crew commanding, patrol commanding (a two-car patrol) and then troop leading (a seven car recce troop) in various phases of war. For each element and phase, you get two practice traces where there are no consequences for failure (save corrective training) and then a confirmation trace that was your "final exam", for which there were consequences for failure (the usual progression of formal warning, review board, etc) 

With a full complement of students, you'd be in the hot seat about once every four traces. In those other traces, you'd be backfilled into observer positions on callsigns commanded by other students. If you did something stupid, you could be corrected for it, but generally being in an observer seat meant you were under the radar for the moment. It was an opportunity to relax a little, and to observe the student who was in the hotseat under less stressful condidtions and (one hopes) learn from his mistakes.

But having only 5 students had a number of side effects:

1) Every single trace was assessed. If you hadn't yet passed your "hard" confirmation trace, there was no consequences for screwing up other than a lot of yelling, but once you passed the confirmation trace, every subsequent trace was also hard assessed - and failure was treated like failing your first confirmation trace with formal wanrings etc

2) Because there wasn't a lot of downtime shuffling kit around and crews around between traces as students changed positions (the instructors would rotate and that was about it) the number of traces that could be done per day went way up - at one point we were doing double the usual number of traces per day.

3) Because 5 cars is the practical minimum number one can do the troop leading traces with, the instructors couldn't actually kick anyone off course until the whole thing had been completed (although we didn't realize this at the time) Instead, potential training failures got the absolute maximum number of allowed failures per phase of war, and then "passed" their last possible chance so as to preserve the body for the next portion of the course.

Now, to further stir the mix, add the following:

1) Of the 5 students on course, three should have been training failures the first week. One of these students was a good guy who was just way out of his element and just not able to keep up, the other two were probably the most aggressively stupid people I have ever met in my entire life. Not just stupid, but AGGRESSIVELY stupid. Because of the nature of leadership courses emphasizing teamwork (as they should) it then fell to the two competant students to carry the whole course. Not only did we have to pass our own traces, we had to do our best to cover for the mistakes of our peers.

2) The Course WO was the living definition of the "instructor you have to survive". This man was the biggest, nastiest, meanest-spirited son of a bitch I have EVER met in my entire life. He hated EVERYBODY, but especially officers, and he did his level best to make every second of our training as miserable as he possibly could - and with great success. Some of the more junior instructors picked up on his example and duplicated his attitude; some of the more seasoned instructors did their best to take the edge off him (and if they were caught doing it, they felt the wrath too. At least two different instructors were threatened with having all their traces thrown out and retested becasue WO A$$hole thought they were being too easy on the students) The man is infamous; you should see some of the reactions I get when I mention his name in certain salty circles (Holy $hit, they let THAT nutcase run courses?!)

3) And finally, mix in that the Armoured Recce course is just naturally very difficult. There's a lot of ground to cover, a lot of different skills to master, and even under ideal conditions it's playing chess at 200 MPH with your hair on fire.

The end result was the highest level of stress that I have ever been subjected to in my entire life by a couple of orders of magnitude, and for an extended period of time. I lost over 30 lbs that summer, and it took me quite a while to "come down" and resume a normal life once the course ended. I still get all worked up just thinking about it.

But.... and I really hate to admit this, because it seems to validate WO Psycho's methods.... that course was my finest hour to date. I'll be goddammed if I (and the other "good guy", Ted Graham from the Elgins) didn't rise to the occasion and overcome all the stressors and obstacles that Psycho Boy threw our way. Like making sausage, it wasn't very pretty while it happened... but in the end, the two of us BEAT the sonofabitch and passed the course. And in the process, man, we were GOOD by the end of it. Talk about passing through the crucible....

Now, getting back to Haggis' first comment, about half that stress was self-inflicted. I remember catching hell for copying a GIP down wrong and then discovering (to my horror) that the troop hide for the next trace (that I was responsible for navigating to) was in the middle of a lake. I deserved every bit of the shit I caught for that one, because in the real world, that could have been fatally disasterous. Mea culpa.

But the other half was just random psycho bullshit that served no useful purpose except to perhaps motivate me to push harder to see his schemes and plans undone. It got kinda personal at one point... a "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" deal.

So I'm having a hard time drawing a valid conclusion here. On the one hand, I never ever ever EVER would run a course that way, or would want to see a course run that way, and probably a half-dozen impressionable young instructors (and a further dozen impressional future instructors) went back to their units thinking that that was how one ran a course, and I shudder to think at what misery that outward-rippling example ultimately caused. But on the other hand, there's no denying that passing through that gauntlet made me a better soldier. If I can survive THAT, I can survive anything.

But as far as the toll of stress goes... by the end of the course, we were all wrecks. It was consumptive, and it took a while to recover from. Up to a point, the increased stress honed us that much sharper, but a line was crossed at some point and it switched over to survival mode. I couldn't have taken a whole lot more than I did.

So I guess to sum up:

1) A high level of stress can indeed produce better soldiers

2) But the stress must be purposefull, not stupid and arbitrary

3) And too much of it eventually turns damaging.

DG


----------



## Gayson (30 Dec 2005)

Don't mean to resurrect old threads but. . . 

I didn't get my assignment back, but, my mark did increase from midterm substantially as a result of whatever mark I did get on my paper.

My thanks to everyone that contributed to this thread,


----------

