Page 109 - Journal of Special Operations Medicine - Spring 2017

conceptualized by Maddi et al. as “the existential cour- controversial, studies suggest that P2 may have to take
age and motivation to cope effectively with stressful cir- into account certain elements of a person’s social envi-
cumstances.” 58,59 Likewise, the trait of risk taking is a ronments and networks along with more conventional
“critical component of judgment and decision- making (e.g., physical and cognitive) domains of performance.
in military operations.” Although many of these traits It is reasonable to believe that the frequency, quality,
60
have traditionally been difficult to quantify, new data and kinds of social interactions and environments a per-
collection tools and analytic approaches may help son experiences shape their biology in ways that could
61
tomorrow’s P2 better incorporate individual differences help bring further precision to guiding the appropriate
in these historically intangible qualities. kind of individualized HPO tool or intervention for P2.
Further, the role of social networks and social influence
may be important for better understanding the source of
Individual Social and Environmental Differences
certain behaviors or the spread and adoption of habits
As creatures that have evolved to shape and be shaped important for HPO within a group or unit. (This invites
by their social environments, humans present further discussion about having to consider the role of unit cul-
challenges when one is trying to understand sources of ture in how HPO programs are designed, but that is a
individual differences that might be important for P2. topic for a future article.) As with many efforts seeking
Consider that the examples presented have not even to understand human variability, it is important to note
addressed potential interactions among the social and that this area of social biology is still highly speculative,
biological levels of human behavior, which may cre- with research likely to invite many false starts and un-
ate certain feedback loops that are increasingly being supported claims. For example, several overstated asser-
identified as important for understanding why people tions about social epigenetics have been derived mainly
differ under otherwise seemingly similar conditions and from animal studies but either were not looked at or
demands. Figure 2 presents a simplistic cartoon of an- not supported in human research. Nonetheless, as data
ticipated interactions, with the overall concept that as a collection and analyses improve, it is highly likely that
complex system of systems, subtle changes in any one we will gain greater insights into understanding how “a
human system can impact one’s ability to perform suc- cell is a machine for turning experience into biology”
62
cessfully, much less optimally. The notion that a person’s and, therefore, how sociobiological interactions might
social networks can exert subtle, but important, influ- help us advance P2 by considering the social interac-
ences on their biology or performance may seem counter- tions and environments of the individual. 62–64 Certainly
intuitive, but with advances in being able to collect and within SOF communities, such interactions are critical
analyze enormous amounts of social data, some early, if to mission success; like certain individual traits, how-
ever, they have often been difficult to measure or lever-
Figure 2 A notional view of the multiple and complex age for HPO. That may be changing.
interactions among the human “systems” that impact
HPO. Although there are different ways to represent this
complexity, to include using different terms or levels of Current State of the
analysis, the figure highlights the challenge of identifying Science in Precision Performance
which sources of individual differences matter most for
optimizing performance.
“Imagine how much harder physics would be
if electrons could think.”
—Nobel Laureate Murray Gell-Mann

Whether dealing with software, logistics, or weapon
platforms, understanding a system’s variability is widely
considered to be critical for optimizing that system’s per-
formance. Given the number and diversity of examples
of individual human performance differences, as noted
in this discussion, it should be no surprise that others
have expressed an urgency for understanding and incor-
porating individual variability to help optimize human
performance, particularly in the military. For example,
Van Dongen et al. identified the need for (and the ben-
65
efit of) building performance models based on individ-
ual differences related to sleep-restriction vulnerability
(rather than on group averages) to make better opera-
tional recommendations for an individual and predict

Precision Performance: What Does It Mean? 85