The Methodology of Frustration

This is not quite as catchy as The Tactics of Mistake. Yet, it is one of those things that is equally true in terms of what defines my approach to life.

I've come to realise that when I deal with an audience, a class, or a discussant, I tend to use an indirect-fire approach. It is like slinging rocks up and over using a trebuchet. The sheer mass and volume of the load ensures that fundamental restructuring occurs on the other side, but you might not be able to see the effects till later.

That however, tends to lead easily to frustration in this modern age of education. One of my peers once commented that I had managed to teach an entire Chemistry lesson using nothing but Socratic reasoning. However, he cautioned, such an approach takes up too much time, and it might be necessary to do it more directly. Some students might get frustrated.

Personally I think that some people ought to be, and would benefit by being, frustrated. These are the ones whose unchecked growth would probably lead to disaster. Sometimes, however, a period of slower growth is important for consolidation. Things like forcing students to derive from basic principles can actually allow them to work out the commonalities underlying a broader range of truths.

Notwithstanding all that, I do of course have other weapons besides this 'methodology of frustration'. I have been known to deploy a ballista instead of a trebuchet. I sometimes have to lay siege to the citadel of the guarded mind, and in such situations, siege projectors of all kinds can be of great value.

In the Shortness of Time (and Distance)

In my head, I hear the phrase, "In the fullness of time." It is one of those biblical phrases which connotes the slow, rich, full and mature development of something. It reminds me of the way a bud forms, a flower blossoms, and a fruit ripens to full sweetness. If only education could be that way — in the human context a deliberate, engaged, maturing process of learning and developing towards some higher goal.

But the problem is that we are always cajoled and harassed into the idea that time is short, that thinking should be instinctively correct, that reflex is more powerful than reason. We look at the (ahem) firearms control debate that has raged for 250 years in America, and the solution is obvious: in English law, there is a traditional (how traditional? try looking back to before the age of the Vikings for its antecedents!) presumption that a citizen has the duty to bear arms and be capable of self-defence, hence all citizens should be allowed to keep weapons for certain purposes. These purposes include defence of property, protection of individual rights, and carrying out the intent of the state where this does not infringe on the first two.

However, that's only one half of the solution. The nutcases which sprout in spring (or summer, autumn or winter) and shoot people could certainly not kill so many people at once without access to explosive technology (chemical explosives and firearms). You can't blow up a building or mow down a crowd easily with a 4-inch blade. The other half of the solution must be some form of regulation or education that prevents these incidents. In all history, it's never been possible to completely eliminate the psychotic and over-stressed.

The solution then is to allow everyone to carry weapons of limited reach, while educating everyone in the rigorous limits and techniques of their use. We have the technology, we claim we can educate, so why not?

There are some states that call themselves republics in which there is a right — nay, a duty — to bear arms. Because the state is run by its citizens, the duty is that of a citizen army. And a citizen police force. And private citizen law-enforcement. And a strong rule of law which makes the use of ranged weapons illegal without a license and an official responsibility to go with it. If half the country is in the armed forces, then why would you be defending yourselves against the armed forces?

There are solutions out there. Most of them will either focus on restricting individual freedoms, or on allowing the free and open mutual contestation of freedoms. That is, in the extreme, either people don't carry ranged weapons at all, or they shoot each other until the only ones left are those who by definition are survivors.

I am so proud that up to this point, I've not mentioned that three-letter word that begins with 'g', ends with 'n', and is an anagram of 'gnu'. I just hope that everyone can be trained (when angry) to count up to more letters than are found in that word before acting. Perhaps to be trained to count up to 'semi-automatic machine pistol' is a good thing, then.

Time is short, education is long. This is the fearful asymmetry that plagues us all, no matter what the issue at hand.

Siege Projectors: A Primer

This is just an old post dug up from the pre-1990 halcyon days of my online existence. I think I wrote the original in 1981!

=====

Ballista: From the Greek word for 'thrower'. This device fired large bolts in a reasonably straight line. It was really a giant crossbow, relying on a combination of torsion and springs to store energy. The scorpion is a smaller version, still quite large, but operated by a single 'sniper'. In theory, a ballista could fire ten bolts, massing several kilograms each, per minute. The effective range was as high as 500m. With Roman technology, that would have been the norm, and their accuracy was impressive. With modern steel, a ballista should be able to fire lighter and stronger bolts over four times that distance.

Catapult: From the Greek word for 'flinger'. Another device using torsion to project a load in a ballistic trajectory. Although the catapult and the ballista were indistinguishable at some point in their common Greek military history, the catapult (and its kin, the onager and mangonel) evolved terminologically to be a sling-like device firing round shot. Siege catapults traditionally fired loads such as rocks with less than a hundred kilograms of mass. A slightly more advanced grasp of mathematics was required than that needed for the operation of a ballista.

Trebuchet: From an Old French root, meaning 'to throw over'. A device using a counterweight mechanism to rotate an opposing arm, which would fling the load in a trajectory dictated by the mechanism design. The trebuchet was invented by the Chinese in the 3rd Century BC, and used by the English in the 11th Century to devastating effect; the machine could throw loads of 150 kilograms more than 200 metres. One such device, the Warwolf, so intimidated Scottish defenders that they tried to surrender when they saw it being assembled.

=====

I actually wrote more on onagers, mangonels, and scorpions; over the years, I simplified things a lot in my mind. It helped that my illustrious father was (and still is) a military historian. Plenty of source material there!

David & Goliath

I was always fascinated with this story when I was a small boy. Dad being a military historian, I always wondered what the fuss was about. Here's a recap (full story here).

David was a shepherd boy with exceptional courage, tactical skill, and brains. The Israelites had been challenged by Goliath of the Philistines, an armoured giant of exceptional size. The Israelites were dismayed because the challenge to single combat looked fatal for the respondent – but they weren't thinking out of the box and did not look past Goliath's bronze armour and panoply. In fact, there was precedent for a superior response – the footsoldiers of the Promised Land had long used projectile weapons with great accuracy.

David merely went back to his roots. Taking five large stones (sling-stones could weigh up to 500g or so), the shepherd boy went hunting. According to the Biblical account, his first shot embedded itself in the giant's head and Goliath died at once. This is not beyond belief; a sling-stone can travel 200 metres in a ballistic trajectory and impact with crushing force.

Quite often, I think people reading this passage come away with the wrong idea. This story is not about blind faith, courage which shuns armour, or the triumph of an anointed youth over experienced men of war. It is the story of using your brains before your enemy uses his; it is the story of ranged weapons and force multipliers. David was very clever. He knew that at 200 metres, a slinger can fire three 500g rocks before a fully armoured man covers half the distance. In extremis, two rocks tied at either end of a braided rope make the weapon called a bolas – this wraps around an enemy's neck or lower limbs, tripping, entangling or incapacitating him.

David had faith in the skills he had honed in his youth, the courage God had blessed him with, and the martial traditions of his predecessors. When we talk about his faith, we should see exactly what it was that he believed in, and why it was that the story ends eventually with King Saul throwing a spear at the young hero. David, basically, was an insufferable smart-ass as far as Saul was concerned. And thus endeth this lesson.