Here are the links to parts
one and
two.
To say that the discussions around military SF can become somewhat fraught as a result
of the conflict generated amongst the readers is probably an
understatement.
Hence this series of blog posts to raise these issues, and address
them. Especially the opinion that people who read military SF are in
some way bad, and that those authors who write the stories have a
conservative political agenda.
Taking the latter point
first.
While some authors do write from a conservative perspective, not
all writers do. Therefore to make such an argument is to fall into the
trap that has a number of different logical fallacies.
As for readers
of military SF being somehow bad, from a notion that they have been
brainwashed by right wing propaganda, and will therefore end up as
sociopaths, I can only sigh.
I repeat again that this argument is based
on logical fallacies that do not stand up to scrutiny; the
psychological research on the subject of the influence of media on the
behaviours of people can at best show correlation, and correlation is
not causation.
The difference between the two being
that it's easy to correlate connections between events, but that doesn’t
mean that one caused the other.
This is as a result of
how we think by using heuristic analysis to come to conclusions.
The
research into thinking processes has revealed that we have a large
number of cognitive biases, and that the beliefs and opinions we hold
are more likely to be wrong than right.
Let me repeat that.
Our beliefs and opinions that we hold are more likely to be wrong than right.
People tend to believe that
they come to hold their opinions from looking at the evidence, but the
research shows that people form opinions, and then look for evidence
that supports their choice.
Furthermore, people tend to discount evidence that
challenges their beliefs.
Summary
So,
if anything I've said has caused a strong emotional response, that's a
clue that an underlying assumption has been triggered. The thing about
emotions is that they should serve you, not you serve them.
War
is the ultimate expression of conflict. And just because some authors
write about conflict in ways trigger a strong negative response, doesn't
mean that writing about war is wrong.
What the
research into reading and playing games about warfare shows is that the
assumptions being made about what that does to people is flawed.
Conflict is at the heart of the human condition and avoidance does not serve us well.
.png)
