Perhaps, but it seems pretty intuitive to me. Would you trust someone to pull through a really difficult situation if they can't even handle the much-less difficult situation of being teased?
Potentially, yes: because the test may be on different aspects of psychology. A person may be prepared to face huge physical danger, but also find the prospect of humilation unbearable. Imagine say a fighter who will step into a ring and compete with composure, but lose it if cheated on by his or her lover. Or vice versa, someone who never minds being the butt of a joke, but no way is going to charge that bunker.
I think you need to ensure that a soldier will endure a reasonable amount of pain, discomfort and stress, and is prepared to put themselves at risk to get a job done. It's just not clear to me that roughhousing and mockery as part of their daily professional experience achieves that. I think that's more likely to be a trust and bonding thing: prove you can be one of gang.
I think what drill instructors do, and what buddies/co-workers do to each-other are two different things. This might be the former, but I was talking more about the latter.
Accepted. I just think that perhaps the culture of co-workers is often "arbitrary". It doesn't serve a purpose (or the purpose could easily be achieved in other ways), it just starts from whatever background and continues on its own momentum.
