Dogmatic Personality- Fail at Aosb

#1
Good Morning Arrse,

Perhaps I can have a bit of positive criticism from you insightful bunch. To paint a picture, I am not a University Graduate, I have never been interested in pursuing a degree as my ambition from an early age has been to pursue a career in the Army as an officer, I achieved the desired grades at Alevel, spent 3 years in the T.A. and travelled the world to fulfil the “cultured and well travelled” characteristic of a well rounded candidate for Sandhurst. I attained a Cat 1 a my briefing and, brimming with confidence I attended my Main board, I worked well with my syndicate, my phys was above the average, my plan ex was (quoted from the debrief) a somewhat risky but overall sound plan, overall I believe I delivered a solid all round performance at Westbury, I wasn’t the best, but I most certainly wasn’t the worst.

The day came and I received my letter informing my I was not successful, this was due to the board considering myself to have a “dogmatic personality” and that my essay was “below average”. When my Aca advised me of this, I smiled politely and pretended I knew exactly what she meant, after googling the word ive found the definition is: Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.

Genuinely confused by this, I have always worked well in a team, and felt that at my syndicate I took everyone’s opinions into consideration, I put my opinion across, but I was very aware that I should not appear to be “bossing” the other members of the syndicate, so the fact they board Identified this trait is worrying.

So for the question, what on earth do I do about it?, I am attempting to the main board for my second and final attempt, and im just wondering? As this is a personality flaw, and not something I can “improve on” i.e. Phys/mental ability, how on earth do I show the board that I am quite the opposite of dogmatic?

Discuss
 
#2
Don't express opinions you can't back up.

Even if you 'know' you're right, concede that the other person has raised a worthwhile point, one that you had not previously considered, rather than taking them off at the ankles and leaving them looking like a twat.
 
#3
You didn't let on you were a 'Daily Sport' reader, did you?
Lethal, that!
 
#5
Think Sharpe, couldn't possibly have a commissioned non-graduate don't you know, mwah mwah mwah. Draconian dinosaurs running the old boys network
 
#6
how on earth do I show the board that I am quite the opposite of dogmatic?
The last thing you want is to come across as indecisive. There is a fine line you need to tread between confidence and sheer forthright bloody-mindedness.
How's your body language?
 
#7
The last thing you want is to come across as indecisive. There is a fine line you need to tread between confidence and sheer forthright bloody-mindedness.
How's your body language?

at this point in time? slumped in utter defeat!
in all fairness, i never considered my body language, what would you suggest i try to do?
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#8
at this point in time? slumped in utter defeat!
in all fairness, i never considered my body language, what would you suggest i try to do?
Lean forward aggressively over the desk when giving your arguments, thumping the table with your fist to reinforce your points. When anyone gives any form of counter argument, make sure you lean away, cross your arms and make a gentle shaking motion with your head to give a strong signal that you are interested in what they have to say, are open to new ideas and are keen to find areas of agreement.

Failing that, stick your fingers in your ears and go "nar, nar, nar I can't hear you!".
 
#10
Advice: Get a new face. Your old one clear doesn't fit.
 
#11
Good Morning Arrse,


considering myself to have a “dogmatic personality” and that my essay was “below average”.
the definition is: Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.


Discuss
By the sounds of it you are well qualified, possibly overly so!
 
#12
"Dogmatic" sounds like a pretty subjective sort of criterion to me. Dunno how much the membership of the Board changes between sessions, but it may not be over-optimistic to hope that if there are different bods on it next time, they'll appreciate you for the invaluable asset to HM Forces that you are undoubtedly destined to become ;-) One man's dogmatic is another man's "courage of his convictions."

Saying a few complimentary things about other syndicate members' contributions would also help, as long as your comments don't come across as patronizing.

Could be more productive to work on your essay-writing -- that's a concrete point. Generally, you've got a good basis there if you stick to the structure of Introduction - Body - Conclusions, you write in active sentences (as opposed to passive), you avoid spelling mistakes and your grammar isn't too crap.
 
#13
Or bite the bullet, call the ACA and admit you don't know what it means (or that 'on reflection you are a bit puzzled as to why the board arrived at this description') and ask for their advice on what to do about it.

msr
 
#14
Morning TC,

Dogma is having a view or opinion which:

a.) Cannot be supported by fact or logic
b.) Is held without consideration of alternatives.

For example: Being dogmatic about whether Oxford of Cambridge is the best university simply because you attended one or the other, ignoring the overall grades and differences between the various subjects. Dogmatic people don't listen to reason or logic, which makes them very difficult to reason or debate with.

The opposite of dogma is reason: the ability to hold a viewpoint without clinging to it, accepting that others may have something to contribute and that your view may not be totally accurate.

Not saying you're like this or trying to be patronising, but if the feedback you received was to be less dogmatic then try the following: Pick one issue you feel really strongly about [Religion, abortion, war, football etc], then go debate with someone about the merits of that view and try to accept that they might have a point.
 
#16
Don't express opinions you can't back up.

Even if you 'know' you're right, concede that the other person has raised a worthwhile point, one that you had not previously considered, rather than taking them off at the ankles and leaving them looking like a twat.

Excellent advice and well put - Micky Blue take heed!
 
#17
It sounds to me as if you might need to consider something called active listening, in addition to thinking whether the points you rely on are provable or have disregarded alternatives.

So when you are listening to someone else's input, before you chuck in your two penn'orth of dogmatic response, feed back to them. It is probably in the final analysis just another way of saying "I hear what you say" but it also implies you listened to what they said before going on with the one and only Plan A!

Oh and practising essay writing requires you to have somebody who can critique your essays , constructively and with at least half an idea of what the board is looking for. So that probably removes 90% of the modern teaching profession and 90% of all graduates from the mix.
 
#18
Lean forward aggressively over the desk when giving your arguments, thumping the table with your fist to reinforce your points. When anyone gives any form of counter argument, make sure you lean away, cross your arms and make a gentle shaking motion with your head to give a strong signal that you are interested in what they have to say, are open to new ideas and are keen to find areas of agreement.
Hopefully Micky, you smiled when you read that. If it just left you confused, we've got a problem.
I'm no body language guru, but I mention it as there are people who make all the right noises but muddy the waters with odd postures, expressions or tempo of delivery.
 
#19
Hopefully Micky, you smiled when you read that. If it just left you confused, we've got a problem.
I'm no body language guru, but I mention it as there are people who make all the right noises but muddy the waters with odd postures, expressions or tempo of delivery.
Just think of the "slow" Vietnamese villager in the film Platoon who is smiling whilst getting his head stoved in with a shotgun butt from PFC Bunny.
 
#20
I'm sorry, but Westbury are probably right.

I'm no expert. I failed a few years back and my little world came crashing down.

My report was quite hurtful in the event, but months, and years later, I realised, they were right.

I don't think they were right about my personality, but they were certainly right about how I performed on the day, and that is what matters.

As time went by, and having sought counselling from some on here, I slotted each of their points about me into where they belonged.

I'll be going back, having taken on new challenges and thought long and hard about self-improvement. I will hopefully adopt a fresh approach when I finally grace the pearly gates of Westbury; and if I fail again, I can move on with my head held high. And if I pass, I will not for one second be bitter about the mini-trauma of my first fail.

As for 'dogmatic character' - I have to say, I have never quite come across some of the c**** that you meet than at WB or on FAM visits (none of whom have been through RMAS). Loud, over-confident, walk-on-water types. Most guys at WB/FAM visits are top blokes and gals, confident, self-assured, but also friendly and compassionate; taking an interest in others around them.

You sound like somebody who cannot accept criticism, and I really really can picture you on my syndicate - the guy who talks over everyone even when a struggling candidate is desperately trying to be heard.

Really really digest the report, and you'll see that they made the most accurate assessment of you that money cannot buy.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top