DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Milty's Mag, March 1942

Transcribe
Translate

Milty's Mag, March 1942

Page 5

A soldier, after training, will perform feats which he previously would never have conceived of doing. A person who had never been in a fight, who became involved in a brawl, would appear to be cowardly because (1) he would not know how it felt to hit a person and (2) his muscles would not be accustomed to making the proper motions; he would hesitate, and it would be reflected in a confusion of mind that would be called cowardly.

While these examples are very crude, and you will no doubt be able to find examples to disprove my thesis, I will wager that there will be a factor of learning entering into it in each case. 

What I wish to point out is that there is nothing wrong with science fiction fans (or anybody else, for that matter) in respect to courage which a little training won't fix.

Speaking of training -- how doth the draft draw ever closer.

But let's not talk about that now and turn, instead, to Sound Off, wherein Ackerman and Gilbert bring up the matter of superman-ethics. In the first place the two of them fall into a common error called "closure" in my psychology book, where words are read wrongly because of previous conceptions. The name is Jommy Cross, not Johnny Cross, boys. Look it up and see.

I like to think that the superman will be a person who can think really logically. He will be able to say: "Here is a fact, here is a fact, and here is an axiom which I accept to be true. Putting them together in their proper proportions they result in an evaluation of the situation which is true and accurate as far as the facts go." He will be able to do this with as little thought as you and I use in saying two plus two equals four. 

Homo sapiens has a devilishly hard time evaluating a situation accurately. His limited mind cannot handle the multiplicity of factors involved, and as a result he has a habit of hanging on to one factor and magnifying it beyond its true proportions, thus distorting his evaluation.

This concept of "evaluating a situation" is of great importance and I wish I had the space to say more about it. E.E. Smith is greatly impressed by the subject and in the Lenaman stories Kimball Kinnison is constantly stopping to gather together the facts and set up a logical picture of the situation. A.D. van Vogt is also preoccupied with this matter; both Slan and his first few stories contain much logical development. (Aside: As a result of this I disagree with Lowndes when he claims that science fiction has made no contributions to literature in the last few years. The newer science fiction has made the contribution of: Consciousness of logical thought.)

So what is our superman going to think of killing people? I do not think that the answer need involve emotionalism. I do not understand Gilbert's statement that, "The question seems to boil

Saving...

A soldier, after training, will perform feats which he previously would never have conceived of doing. A person who had never been in a fight, who became involved in a brawl, would appear to be cowardly because (1) he would not know how it felt to hit a person and (2) his muscles would not be accustomed to making the proper motions; he would hesitate, and it would be reflected in a confusion of mind that would be called cowardly. While these examples are very crude, and you will no doubt be able to find examples to disprove my thesis, I will wager that there will be a factor of learning entering into it in each case. What I wish to point out is that there is nothing wrong with science fiction fans (or anybody else, for that matter) in respect to courage which a little training won't fix. Speaking of training -- how doth the draft draw ever closer. But let's not talk about that now and turn, instead, to Sound Off, wherein Ackerman and Gilbert bring up the matter of superman-ethics. In the first place the two of them fall into a common error called "closure" in my psychology book, where words are read wrongly because of previous conceptions. The name is Jommy Cross, not Johnny Cross, boys. Look it up and see. I like to think that the superman will be a person who can think really logically. He will be able to say: "Here is a fact, here is a fact, and here is an axiom which I accept to be true. Putting them together in their proper proportions they result in an evaluation of the situation which is true and accurate as far as the facts go." He will be able to do this with as little thought as you and I use in saying two plus two equals four. Homo sapiens has a devilishly hard time evaluating a situation accurately. His limited mind cannot handle the multiplicity of factors involved, and as a result he has a habit of hanging on to one factor and magnifying it beyond its true proportions, thus distorting his evaluation. This concept of "evaluating a situation" is of great importance and I wish I had the space to say more about it. E.E. Smith is greatly impressed by the subject and in the Lenaman stories Kimball Kinnison is constantly stopping to gather together the facts and set up a logical picture of the situation. A.D. van Vogt is also preoccupied with this matter; both Slan and his first few stories contain much logical development. (Aside: As a result of this I disagree with Lowndes when he claims that science fiction has made no contributions to literature in the last few years. The newer science fiction has made the contribution of: Consciousness of logical thought.) So what is our superman going to think of killing people? I do not think that the answer need involve emotionalism. I do not understand Gilbert's statement that, "The question seems to boil