Military Officer versus Journalist

The standard teacher/pupil teaching technique accentuates the importance of acquiring knowledge. The Socratic technique accentuates the importance of understanding and critical thinking. Being knowledgeable of a matter and understanding a matter are very different categories of comprehension.

I thought I might compare and contrast the professional journalist with the professional military officer in an attempt to focus upon the difference and importance of these two intellectual traits of comprehension.

What might be the ideal character traits of these two professions? It seems that the military officer should be smart, well trained, obedient, and brave. The journalist should be smart, well trained, critical thinking, and honest. The journalist must have well-developed intellectual character traits and be skillful in critical thinking. The military officer should be trained to act somewhat like an automaton in critical circumstances.

The officer’s behavior in each conceivable circumstance should follow precisely a well-established code of action. The officer is trained to follow well-established algorithms in every circumstance. Even those instances wherein the officer is authorized to deviate from standard procedure are clearly defined algorithms. The officer deviates from established behavior only when absolutely necessary and that ad hoc behavior should follow along prescribed avenues. The officer obeys all commands without critical analysis except in very unusual circumstances. Bravery and obedience are the two most desired character traits of a military officer.

The role of the journalist in wartime has evolved dramatically in the last 50 years. During WWII the journalist acted as cheerleader and propagandist. During the Vietnam War the journalist often played the role of critical analyst. While one can see some positive reasons for the cheerleader and propagandist I will assume that overall this is not a proper role for the journalist in a democracy. The ideal journalist must always be a critical analyst and communicate honestly to the reader the results of her investigation.

Since most people unconsciously seek opinion fortification rather than truth they become very agitated when they find news which does not fortify their opinion. Thus, most people have low opinions of journalists. Nevertheless, it is no doubt the ideal journalist is one who presents the facts fairly, accurately, and in a balanced manner. The ability ‘to connect the dots’ in each situation is of primary importance for the ideal journalist. Knowledge is important but understanding and critical thinking is more important.

We certainly want our military officers educated more in the didactic mode than in the Socratic mode whereas we would find that journalist educated in the Socratic mode would be the better journalist. The journalist must be able to recognize the prejudices of others as well as recognizing his/her own biases.

What might one say as regarding the contrasting importance of critical thinking and knowledge for a teacher, engineer, accountant, nurse, factory worker or secretary? With consideration we probably will find that knowledge is more important than critical thinking when analyzing the individual as a worker. The credentials that appear on most resumes are those testifying to a degree of knowledge by the job applicant. We do not even have a metric for understanding or critical thinking.

I think it is correct to assume that knowledge can be imparted by a teacher to an individual more quickly and efficiently using the standard technique whereas the Socratic technique, while developing understanding and critical thinking, is much less efficient in imparting knowledge. Here, as in everything else there is a trade off. In a set period of time more knowledge can be imparted using the standard mode.

The question then becomes: is it more important to have citizens with greater knowledge and less understanding and critical thinking or citizens with greater understanding and critical thinking and less knowledge?

I claim that democracy is more dependent upon the citizen who exemplifies more the characteristic of the ideal journalist than the ideal military officer.

Democracy will eventually live or die based upon the degree of sophistication for critical thinking and understanding by our citizens. Our schools and colleges have made some small attempt to teach Critical Thinking but adults cannot wait for the distant future when many of our citizens have learned Critical Thinking. Today’s adult must proceed with the effort to become a self-learner of Critical Thinking.

I think there are several levels of critical thinking, do you agree?

Do you think that the journalist or the military officer offers the best example for educating the citizens of a democracy?

private joker for prez

I just finished my last year of high school in June and I can honestly say that until this year, I've never had a teacher ask me "Why do you believe that?" or ask me to question my beliefs. I've always had teachers that have been teaching to a test, whether it be a Regents exam, or an AP exam. It's all the same. Unfortunately, that doesn't help me develop much as a student because I can't remember a thing about igneous or volcanic rocks even though I took earth science in eigth grade, and I can't recall much about The Outsiders, but learning to think critically and question beliefs is a skill that cannot be forgotten.

On that front, I agree with you Coberst. In order for the citizenry to make informed decisions, we have to be able to think logically and intelligently. Unfortunately, the education system in the United States is more focused on breeding students who can score well on standardized tests (which are often way too easy and are meant for students to score well on) than students who can actually think for themselves.

Hold a sec. Did you actually give an opinion and ask a question or are both part of the original quote?

Freedom of speech and equal representations (two prerequisites of a democracy by most accounts) are meant to better society by supporting the most convincing opions. Ideally, democratic citizens express their political beliefs through reasoned argumentation and listen to each other open-mindedly, and eventually society arrives at the best (or best available) alottment of authority and rights. This process is clearly driven by critical thinking, while raw knowledge plays at most a peripheral role.

That said, in any sizeable community the livelyhood of the majority will depend on their ability to gain, access, and utilize knowledge, as most occupations rely more heavily on this mode of thinking than on critical reasoning. This majority does not wholly lack the ability to critically reason though, and so when the few who make it their life's work to think critically present their positions on how things aught to be, the classicly taught majority can evaluate the arguments and decide which they think is best. Even though these people may not understand every facet of these arguments or be able to evaluate them as fully as those making them, it is the hope of the democrat that they understand enough for the subsequent vote to be truth-seeking (interesting to note that if the strongest part of an argument was the most subtle it might be wrongly thrown out).

The better critical thinkers citizens are, the more likely that a democratic decision will be truth seeking. However, rights and authority are only part of a political stance. Of primary importance to government is (or should be?) the well being of the people it governs, which, as mentioned above, hinges more on their knowledge than their critical thinking. Thus it seems reasonable that the focus of teaching should be about knowledge, and not until students reach a stage where they begin to specify their studies in preparation for their adult lives do they have the opportunity to truly center their learning around critical thinking.

Final thought: If we acknowledge that those best able to govern society are critical thinkers and the best critical thinkers are a minority (and of course you may disagree with my argument), wouldn't it make the most sense for them to make decisions on behalf of the rest as in a Platonic Republic?
(Egoistic human nature makes this implausible ldo, but that still suggests we settle for democracy because its the best we think we can do, but not the ideal structure)

edit: this posts assumes OP's premise that learning is thusly divisible

A lot depends on using logic from value judgments OP. I believe logic in its purest form most probably doesn't always meet what practically works for human beings. We have certain time tested behaviors and attitudes that probably can't be proven to be 100 percent logical but they are rational because of the results they produce.

Trust may be the most important ingredient of a society and social relationships working together successfully. Social relationships and social contracts of any kind break down without trust and deciding to trust someone is a value judgment. Trust is bound to be important in a democratic government which is only effective when each branch of government trusts and works with the other.

Critical thinking is probably more important for creating things/new inventions that increase social progress.

One of the most successful nations in the world is Japan. The people in Japan worked so well together that they made "Made in Japan" products a thing to be sought after when once they were viewed as inferior. They are the most group oriented society in the world and they have singularly few trust issues and crime is very low.

Japan is one of the more "authoritarian" societies around but they seem happy with it: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=2

Both military officers and journalists have the option to do good or do bad to a degree rarely allowed for people of such easily accessible careers.

I don't see a reason why either should be an example for anything. It is not the profession or whatever professed ideals you place on it it which should stand as an example - but maybe the people behind it in some rare cases.

There are many who argue trust/relationships are logical/rational. When one's goal is to benefit the public rather than the self these are beneficial if not necessary ingredients. People who think trust is illogical become trapped in the prisoner's dilemma, employing game theoretically optimal strategy to wind up with notably suboptimal results.



tame_deuces OP's query does not concern the specific occupations or their moral worth. He is using them to represent what he sees as two distinct mind activities, critical thinking and concrete knowledge.

OK, I'll be the cynic on this one. The idea that journalists displays any amount of critical thinking is preposterous. The work of the journalist/reporter has alway been that of reporting the happenings/views of others. This type of work/profession in and of itself breeds a non critical/thinking mind set. A man runs up to you and screams there's a fire at the clubhouse! This is the journalist, no thought, as he is reporting the news. Look at the TV anchors, a pretty face and if they have something to say you can be sure there's someone behind the scenes and not necessarily a reporter.


A while back read something to the effect that a famous reporter/journalist(forget who) when giving advice to other journalists : whatever you write, remember to always make them feel uncomfortable.

Which is a dangerous practice in itself. 'Titles' make for bad ideals as you eventually end up being blindsided when they go corrupt in the real world.

"What might be the ideal character traits of these two professions? It seems that the military officer should be smart, well trained, obedient, and brave... The military officer should be trained to act somewhat like an automaton in critical circumstances.

The officer’s behavior in each conceivable circumstance should follow precisely a well-established code of action. The officer is trained to follow well-established algorithms in every circumstance. Even those instances wherein the officer is authorized to deviate from standard procedure are clearly defined algorithms. The officer deviates from established behavior only when absolutely necessary and that ad hoc behavior should follow along prescribed avenues. The officer obeys all commands without critical analysis except in very unusual circumstances. Bravery and obedience are the two most desired character traits of a military officer."

Coberst, I usually enjoy your posts, but you have military officers all wrong.

It has been a hallmark of military education in the U.S. for, geez, probably since ever, that the single most important trait for a military officer is integrity. The single most important sentence Cadets at West Point are taught is the honor code: "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do."

Integrity cannot be taught--but moral thinking can be instilled through requiring critical and ethical thinking on a regular basis.

Further, military leadership education distinguishes between physical and moral courage, but emphatically asserts that if an officer lacks integrity, he will lack both physical and moral courage.

Military leadership training also stresses the importance of initiative and independent action. Reacting like an automaton is fine for privates first class who are told "action left!" but once you rise to the level of even a very junior non-commissioned officer, the military requires that you demonstrate the ability to think for yourself, and to identify and solve problems without supervision or instruction.

Officers, indeed all military members, swear an oath to obey the orders of those senior to them, but no time outside of basic training is dedicated to teaching obedience to orders for two simple reasons: 1. The officer giving the order is presumed to be an intelligent person of unassailable integrity, which imbues the order itself with a sense of justice, and 2. the soldier receiving the order is presumed to be an intelligent person of unassailable integrity for whom refusing a lawful order is, quite literally, unthinkable.

But the military does not want unthinking obedience--it wants junior officers to question orders--if it is a question of tactics, for instance, junior officers are expected to speak their minds, circumstances permitting, and to be smart enough to figure out whether circumstances permit, and to have the integrity to follow an order they disagree with, once given. On questions of the legality of an order, the junior officer is legally required to independently determine for himself the legality of any order before obeying it.

These are not automatons--the military ships those out to the civil service as fast as possible (). they are, the best of them, people of impeccable character who would literally die before they failed to carry out a lawful order, and would rather die than obey an unlawful one.

I don't know if this screws up your dialectic or not--but military officers are perhaps the worst example possible for the "automaton, taught through rote," side of your argument.

I pick these two professions because I think that they represent the two ends of the spectrum.

I think of journalist and military officer as representing the extremes of the spectrum regarding critical thinking. You place officers on the same end with where I place journalists. I guess then that you think that journalists and officers are very similar in this regard. What profession would you place at the far end in place of the officer?

I am not sure that any profession would qualify for the precisely-defined-algorithm in every situation standard. The whole point of the learned professions is the ability to think critically.

I think the best example among the learned professions for your automaton approach is doctors. medicine, the way it is practiced here in the U.S., seems from my lay perspective, to be essentially solved. Practitioners receive inputs in terms of the patient's history, the results of medical tests and produce a specific output--the standard treatment for the diagnosis. Doctors know that the coreect procedure for a broken bone is to set it back in place and immobilize it, and they never deviate from this sop, except in specific, usually severe situations. They know that the correct treatment for, say, colon cancer, is irradiate here, cut there, dose with abc, etc."

I am NOT comfortable labeling doctors with far extreme of your spectrum, but I can't think of any better example among the learned professions.

Since you departed from the "learned professions" in using journalists as the other extreme of your spectrum, perhaps you would consider lowering the bar to include all careers requiring a certain specialized knowledge, opening the door to the other trades besides journalism. If so, I would suggest as a replacement for military officers something such as auto mechanic or electrician. Auto mechanics can be described in very similar language to doctors--they receive inputs, diagnose the problem and replace the appropriate part (they almost never repair an existing part anymore, an important distinction between doctors and auto mechanics).

In fact, I think any of the trades could serve very usefully to illustrate the "automaton" end of your spectrum--most of them involve receiving by rote a fairly impressive body of knowledge, and then gaining experience employing that body of knowledge to lay bricks in precise rows in precise patterns, or to frame a house or a cabinet in the most appropriate way or whatever.

Although I don't care nearly as much as I did about the affront I perceived to military officers (I doubt it was intentional on your part), I don't think journalism is at the other end of the spectrum either. I studied journalism in college and I worked as a free-lance journalist briefly and remain involved in journalism (I am on the board of directors of a media company), and it is a pretty sop-oriented career. There is room for initiative and creativity in the less "journalistic," aspects--feature writing, sports writing, but what we think of as investigative or news reporting is extremely rule bound, and almost all of the creativity is bound up in the actual writing, but even then the news is expected to be poured into a time-honored mold.

At the free-thinking end of your spectrum, I might suggest replacing journalists with psychologists, or ministers or, as a distant third, maybe lawyers (I worked as a lawyer, though, so I am a little reluctant based on first hand experience to place it at that end of the spectrum). The first two learned professions I list deal with people and their problems, and are therefore, enormously complicated. The professional in these fields, as I understand them, tries to categorize people and their problems--this one is depressed, this one has oedipal issues, whatever, and to deal with them accordingly, but they seem like far less rule-bound or sop-oriented than any other career I can think of. Hold my feet to the fire and I say "minister," I guess. That would be an extremely unpopular choice on this very anti-religious forum, but i think I would stick by it as a defensible choice.

So people don't like the job metaphors...anyone want to discuss the modes of thought they were supposed to represent and their place in a democracy (OP's question)?

Is there anything you haven't done?

What is there to discuss?

Coberst places no value on the very values he gospels about. In his eyes he writes the truth and if people point something out then it is always "bluff and sophomoric bluster from those who know little about the subject".

It would seem we don't get to think critically in regards to Coberst's writings. Raising a concern or a question means you don't know. Objecting means you are bluffing. Disagreeing means you are not educated.

No thanks, I'll stick to academics instead of thesaurated essays.