On Killing (English Edition) et plus d'un million d'autres livres sont disponibles pour le Kindle d'Amazon. En savoir plus


ou
Identifiez-vous pour activer la commande 1-Click.
ou
en essayant gratuitement Amazon Premium pendant 30 jours. Votre inscription aura lieu lors du passage de la commande. En savoir plus.
Amazon Rachète votre article
Recevez un chèque-cadeau de EUR 2,00
Amazon Rachète cet article
Plus de choix
Vous l'avez déjà ? Vendez votre exemplaire ici
Désolé, cet article n'est pas disponible en
Image non disponible pour la
couleur :
Image non disponible

 
Commencez à lire On Killing (English Edition) sur votre Kindle en moins d'une minute.

Vous n'avez pas encore de Kindle ? Achetez-le ici ou téléchargez une application de lecture gratuite.

On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society [Anglais] [Broché]

Dave Grossman
5.0 étoiles sur 5  Voir tous les commentaires (1 commentaire client)
Prix : EUR 15,99 Livraison à EUR 0,01 En savoir plus.
  Tous les prix incluent la TVA
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Il ne reste plus que 9 exemplaire(s) en stock (d'autres exemplaires sont en cours d'acheminement).
Expédié et vendu par Amazon. Emballage cadeau disponible.
Voulez-vous le faire livrer le vendredi 1 août ? Choisissez la livraison en 1 jour ouvré sur votre bon de commande. En savoir plus.

Formats

Prix Amazon Neuf à partir de Occasion à partir de
Format Kindle EUR 7,20  
Broché EUR 15,99  
Broché --  
Lecteur digital à contenu audio pré-chargé --  
CD, Livre audio, Version intégrale EUR 21,14  
Vendez cet article - Prix de rachat jusqu'à EUR 2,00
Vendez On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society contre un chèque-cadeau d'une valeur pouvant aller jusqu'à EUR 2,00, que vous pourrez ensuite utiliser sur tout le site Amazon.fr. Les valeurs de rachat peuvent varier (voir les critères d'éligibilité des produits). En savoir plus sur notre programme de reprise Amazon Rachète.

Offres spéciales et liens associés


Produits fréquemment achetés ensemble

On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society + On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace
Acheter les articles sélectionnés ensemble


Descriptions du produit

Présentation de l'éditeur

The good news is that most soldiers are loath to kill. But armies have developed sophisticated ways of overcoming this instinctive aversion. And contemporary civilian society, particularly the media, replicates the army's conditioning techniques, and, according to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's thesis, is responsible for our rising rate of murder among the young.

Upon its initial publication, ON KILLING was hailed as a landmark study of the techniques the military uses to overcome the powerful reluctance to kill, of how killing affects soldiers, and of the societal implications of escalating violence. Now, Grossman has updated this classic work to include information on 21st-century military conflicts, recent trends in crime, suicide bombings, school shootings, and more. The result is a work certain to be relevant and important for decades to come.

Biographie de l'auteur

A former army Ranger and paratrooper, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman taught psychology at West Point and was the professor of Military Science at Arkansas State University.

Détails sur le produit

  • Broché: 416 pages
  • Editeur : Back Bay Books; Édition : Revised (22 juin 2009)
  • Langue : Anglais
  • ISBN-10: 0316040932
  • ISBN-13: 978-0316040938
  • Dimensions du produit: 20,6 x 13,7 x 3 cm
  • Moyenne des commentaires client : 5.0 étoiles sur 5  Voir tous les commentaires (1 commentaire client)
  • Classement des meilleures ventes d'Amazon: 2.700 en Livres anglais et étrangers (Voir les 100 premiers en Livres anglais et étrangers)
  •  Souhaitez-vous compléter ou améliorer les informations sur ce produit ? Ou faire modifier les images?


En savoir plus sur l'auteur

Découvrez des livres, informez-vous sur les écrivains, lisez des blogs d'auteurs et bien plus encore.

Quels sont les autres articles que les clients achètent après avoir regardé cet article?


Commentaires en ligne 

4 étoiles
0
3 étoiles
0
2 étoiles
0
1 étoiles
0
5.0 étoiles sur 5
5.0 étoiles sur 5
Commentaires client les plus utiles
Format:Broché|Achat vérifié
J'ai très bien aimé ce livre - c'est assez facile à lire (très clair) et très informatif.

L'auteur (un psychologue et soldat) s'occupe des questions:
si l'homme est naturellement prêt à tuer; quels facteurs l'aident ou le conditionnent à tuer dans la guerre; quelles conséquences psychiques cela a pour le soldat et quel rôle la société joue; et met le conditionnement militaire en parallèle avec la présence de violence dans les médias. Tout cela en rapport avec le développement historique de la guerre depuis la première guerre mondiale.

Je ne suis pas d'experte, mais les thèses me semblent être bien fondé, et le livre est en tout cas une bonne impulsion pour des lecteurs qui s'intèressent à la nature de l'homme, au fait de l'existence de la violence, à la guerre, et qui veulent réflechir un peu sur ces sujets.
Avez-vous trouvé ce commentaire utile ?
Commentaires client les plus utiles sur Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 4.4 étoiles sur 5  248 commentaires
71 internautes sur 75 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
4.0 étoiles sur 5 Exception work but disagree with the fundemental thesis 18 novembre 2012
Par William R. Forstchen - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Format Kindle|Achat vérifié
I've debated for several days after reading "On Killing" whether to post a review or not. I have tremendous respect for the author and his professional credentials but must disagree with his thesis and especially his use of two sources in particular. The author is a devotee of S.L.A. Marshall as were many until two works in the late 1980s cast serious doubts on Marshall's methodology and even his personal character. This blew open while I was a graduate student, specializing in military history and therefore became a topic of intense debate within my circle of fellow students and professors, especially my mentor, who was a British Commando in WWII. The second source I would debate is some of the information the author took from Paddy Griffith's works on the American Civil War.

The underlying thesis of "On Killing" is that mankind is instinctively hard wired Not To Kill. How I wish that was true, and yet our bloody record across recorded history and plenty of evidence even prior to recorded history shows the exact opposite. We are, by instinct "killer angels." Read "War Before Civilization" as but one counter argument. But directly to my concern about the author's sources. "SLAM" Marshall's reputation was built on alleged interviews, hundreds of them, immediately after combat during WWII in which he asserts that at least 75% of combat infantry never fired their weapons, thereby proving that soldiers, at least American soldiers abhor killing and try to avoid doing so even at the risk of their lives.

Marshall's work was called into serious doubt in the late 1980s by one history who simply ran a "time analysis" on how many soldiers Marshall claimed to have interviewed and came up with an impossible number of hours to have achieved the number of interviews he claimed, in other words falsified data which was turned about to fit his thesis. David Hackworth, who served with Marshall was scathing in his comments about serving directly with the man. When it comes to WWII I feel the author of "On Killing" neglected a near infinite number of variables that affect men in combat. . .green vs. veterans, nature of combat, open field vs. the terror of close up urban where indeed one or two of a squad are usually heavily engaged with the rest provide cover, hauling ammunition for machine guns and back up, etc. Even more significant, as Keegan repeatedly points out in his exceptional works, the level of brutality rapidly escalates due to such issues as defense, especially if defending one's own country from invasion verse offense, difference in ethnicity and especially difference in race and religion which truly trigger the darker side of our nature. But one example, German troops transferred from the Russian front to France were actually briefed that this was now a different enemy and rules of war again apply. As to "our guys" in that war, I have yet to interview a vet of the Pacific War who said there was any civility or urge not to kill, the hatred ran that deep, fueled as well by racial difference. In the European theater any vet I interviewed would almost smile when discussing combat against Italian troops, but when confronting the Waffen SS it was to the death and usually no prisoners and fought by all with hatred.

I know this is a long review but I must comment on a second topic the author covers at length and that is our Civil War and what I felt was his over reliance on the works of "Paddy" Griffith, yet another author I have respect for even when I disagree. The author of "On Killing" dwells repeatedly on the fact that on average between 200-250 rounds were fired for each casualty inflicted and thus again leaps to the conclusion that this demonstrates his thesis that soldiers on both sides, either deliberately aimed high, or even went so far as to mimic loading their guns and not firing at all.

I must counter on several points. The author asserts that the typical range of Civil War combat was 30 yards. Definitely not true! (a belief shored up by such films as Patriot or even the opening scene in Glory). Typical range, especially as the war dragged out and killing effectiveness increased, was typically two hundred yards or more. Close in volley fights, at fifty yards or less, such as Groveton, August 1862 were indeed rare, except when opposing sides tangled into each other in woods such as at the Wilderness.

I've personally run some live fire tests with others and not just reenactments with everyone running about shooting blanks. The biggest factor affecting aimed fire. . .smoke, and smoke and more smoke, carpets of it that within minutes all but blinded both sides. At two hundred and fifty yards a mis-aim of even a few millimeters too high translates into a minie ball into the tree tops four hundred yards away. Third, try putting a percussion cap on the nipple of a rifled musket when all is confusion and terror, and finally something we of course could not simulate, the fear because "they are shooting back." Add in exhaustion, bad food, close friends torn apart by your side, these were the deciders of rifle fire effectiveness, not a 75% rate of those who refused to kill no matter what the situation. The author cites the number or rifles found at Gettysburg with two or more bullets rammed into them and to my amazement asserts that to actually then put on a percussion cap and fire it for real would clean out the half dozen or more minie balls and powder charges jammed in. I would suggest handing that assignment over to Myth Busters and standing well clear. I ascribe this to terrified kids who in many cases first jammed a bullet down the barrel rather than the powder and in the confusion did not even know they were no longer shooting. I actually have done that a few times with loading, thinking I had fired but the percussion cap had fallen off then loaded again, (firing blanks only) and the kickback was certainly a shocker and realization that even in a simulation I could get rattled!

Definitely time for a conclusion I think. I give this book four stars because it is obviously well researched even though I think the author has "chased his thesis up the wrong tree," I nevertheless welcome the debate it creates. I do wish I could hold a more optimistic view of humanity when it comes to the subject of our brutality towards each other. A point I do wish had been covered in more detail is my own belief that high technology weapons and media now make killing even easier. We no longer look directly into the eyes of the man we kill, hear his screams and see that "inner light" go dark. Our alleged entertainment usually involves brutal deaths, the more the better in the latest James Bond movie for example, Youtube and other sources are flooded with "cool" night vision footage of enemies being blown apart and though I do detest the Taliban and their creed as an enemy we must confront, it is a bit disturbing when watching a human being shredded by 30mm cannon fire and to read the comments that it is "cool." It has become the desensitizing conditioning of first person "shoot `em ups" of Xbox translated into realities.

Even if you disagree with the author's thesis that we as a species recoil from killing, the book will nevertheless provoke reflective thought and I am seriously considering using it as text book in my classes that deal with warfare.
93 internautes sur 118 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
1.0 étoiles sur 5 Terribly overrated 14 janvier 2011
Par G. R. - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Broché|Achat vérifié
I cannot recommend this book to anyone. I hoped I would find in it a well-documented, well-thought-out treatment of the subject matter. To my surprise, I found instead a sensationalized polemic advocating the censorship of violent video games.

The author was unconvincing in his arguments. It is clear from his cherry-picking of statistics that he wants us to believe that we live in a society of ever-increasing violence. Unfortunately for Grossman, US Department of Justice statistics contradict this assertion. According to DOJ numbers easily found through a Google search, violent crime rates (including homicide)in America skyrocketed from about 1960 to the early 1990s, but have been falling steadily since then. Would anyone argue that the use of violent video games in the US is falling steadily as well? He also fails to mention that certain societies with arguably even more violent video games than the US have much lower rates of violent crime than we do, for example Japan.

The author seems to rely heavily on a few secondary sources, particularly John Keegan's Face of Battle and Richard Holmes' Acts of War. His few primary sources include articles from Soldier of Fortune magazine; he appears to take them at face value that they are true, accurate first-person accounts of combat experiences. He claims that he himself conducted several hundred interviews of combat veterans, but didn't seem to use their accounts as sources.

His personal bias in on display here, but he seems unaware of it. He lionizes the American soldier. I served as an American soldier for two decades before retiring in 2001. I came to view my fellow soldiers as ordinary fallen beings sometimes performing unpleasant tasks in unpleasant places. Hero worship is a poor tool when one seeks the truth.

Most troubling is Grossman's frequent citing of controversial assertions by Samuel Lyman Atwood Marshall. Marshall, better known as SLA Marshall, or SLAM, a newspaper columnist and US Army officer, claimed to conduct hundreds of interviews with US combat veterans in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. His claimed insights about the reticence of men in combat to fire their weapons were influential in how the US Army shaped its training in the latter half of the 20th Century. As an enthusiastic young Army officer in the 1980s, I eagerly read his works.

In the early to mid 1990s, several people began to re-examine Marshall's assertions (google Roger J. Spiller and Harold Leinbaugh). Attempts to confirm Marshall's claims of how he conducted his research have cast serious doubts on the accuracy of his assertions. First-person accounts of people who were present during his claimed interviews in WWII and Korea differed dramatically from SLAM's accounts of how many interviews were conducted, how they were conducted, what subjects were discussed, etc. Attempts to confirm SLAM's accounts with physical evidence have been unsuccessful. At some point, he claimed to have filled about 800 notebooks with the results of his interviews, but only two of his notebooks have surfaced, despite the fact that his voluminous personal and professional papers are in the possession of the University of Texas at El Paso library, and have been extensively searched.

Marshall established a reputation for exaggerating his personal accomplishments, including those in wartime. He claimed to have won a battlefield commission in WWI but records indicate he was commissioned in 1919, after the war ended. He claimed to have been an infantryman leading other infantrymen in combat in WWI, but records indicate that he was instead a sergeant of engineers, attached to the 90th Infantry Division, doing construction and repair work on roads.

In the Introduction to the June 2009 edition of On Killing, Grossman quickly addresses the controversy over Marshall and simply dismisses it out of hand. This suggests much about Grossman's mindset. An objective writer simply seeking the truth might have been hesitant to continue to rely heavily on a figure such as Marshall whose credibility had been so called into question. Instead Grossman charges forward, continuing to rely on Marshall, despite the serious doubts about his credibility.
31 internautes sur 38 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
2.0 étoiles sur 5 Over hyped underbelievable 18 septembre 2011
Par jam - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Broché|Achat vérifié
This book is found on many reading lists to include the Commadant of the Marine Corps. I have heard great things from several sources and when I finally sat down and read it for myself I found it to be hard to really get through. As a combat veteran serving with the USMC during OIF in several tours many things Grossman talks about I feel are valid. Conditioning and realistic training making it reflexive to kill without weighing all of the peramiters set in a previous chapter in the book, Unit cohesion being important not only in combat but during a work up and even post deployment. I do like the stories used to convey the messages he is trying to get across but feel that some of them are a stretch. That being said I really have a hard time believeing that any trained military force when engaged in close combat only 15-20% in previous wars would engage an enemy with legitimate intent to kill. And furthermore in my own military experience (in which Grossman brands my entire generation "pseudo sociopaths" thank you rambo and playstation) killing was excepted as a part of the job and the idea of a woman or adolecent shooting at us and having to return fire had no greater psycological effect then a military aged male.

He further talks about the distance involved making killing easier the farther away and less humanized a target is which i guess has makes some sense however, to use a hypothetical example. A trained soldier underneith an enemy at knife range is going to clearly go into condition red, revert to the lowest level of training (and survival) instinct and react to that situation in kind. What they will not do, is lay there and identify the enemy as some poor kid like them scared out of their mind too, analize how hard it is to kill another human being because it is wrong and that since they are so close that instict is even stronger "so i am going to lay here and hope that you have the same underlying anti killing their own species feelings inside of you I do.

Overall there were some alright charts that were backed up with alright theories but I would encourage anyone who reads this to not look at this book as the end all on the subject.
55 internautes sur 70 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
1.0 étoiles sur 5 One-sided? Of course not... 11 mars 2012
Par d.hall - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Format Kindle
I've owned two printed copies of this book. Very thought-provoking, and a good read, but with one major flaw...LTC Grossman forms much of his work around data that the military has (for many years now) considered to be flawed (at best) and out-right false (at worst). Knowing that Grossman bases so much of his thesis on fictional data involving the percentage of combatants who shot to kill in past conflicts causes one to wonder if his data on, say, PTSD is legitimate, or if he searched hundreds of sources to find a few obscure studies that matched his ideology. A reader should not need to fact-check a book on a subject as profound as this.
For those interested, do a quick online search on this title, check out the now-refuted references he relies heavily on, and note that the military (who funded the original research) debunked it long before the author first published this work.

Summary: Exceptionally written, but by using disproven information to make his case, the author has presented a work of fiction and called it something more.
7 internautes sur 7 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
2.0 étoiles sur 5 Pseudo-Science and wrong on many counts 6 septembre 2013
Par A. C. Rooney - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Format Kindle|Achat vérifié
I bought this book on the understanding it contained "case studies". It does not. Apart from meeting veterans in bars and reciting other peoples works and then leaping to conclusions, there are no "Case Studies" as such. I'm sure Col. Grossman has had many veterans on his couch, but as one reviewer pointed out, this is "underbelievable". It is not scientific in any way and is purely anecdotal. I served in the Rhodesian Air Force and it was a simple fact that the terrorists preferred automatic fire. If Grossman knew even a little he would know that the AK-47 does not behave well on full-auto (it climbs radically). It wasn't because these terrorists did not want to kill us and were firing over our heads - it was because they couldn't shoot. They had no problem performing the most unspeakable atrocities, I think it very unlikely they were reluctant to shoot us. And to say the Rhodesian military had no air support is evidence of Grossman's complete ignorance on the topic. On some issues he was correct, but really, the fact that it's easier to kill from a distance is not exactly ground breaking information. Despite what this man who has never seen combat says in his book, it's pretty easy to kill someone who pisses you off by shooting at you and your mates. Oh but then I must be one of the 2% he talks about. Not in my experience. I cannot believe that people hold this tripe in such high regard. As one US soldier told him: "You're a virgin that says he's a expert on sex". Pretty appropriate I think.
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ?   Dites-le-nous
Rechercher des commentaires
Rechercher uniquement parmi les commentaires portant sur ce produit

Discussions entre clients

Le forum concernant ce produit
Discussion Réponses Message le plus récent
Pas de discussions pour l'instant

Posez des questions, partagez votre opinion, gagnez en compréhension
Démarrer une nouvelle discussion
Thème:
Première publication:
Aller s'identifier
 

Rechercher parmi les discussions des clients
Rechercher dans toutes les discussions Amazon
   


Rechercher des articles similaires par rubrique


Commentaires

Souhaitez-vous compléter ou améliorer les informations sur ce produit ? Ou faire modifier les images?