I was just thinking of the same thing, earlier today.

And it occurred to me that The Other Greg seems to react to posts with the instinctive urge to deny that he ever wrote anything that was illogical. This tendency has led him to circle around to the point that he seems to be arguing against his original point.

From what I can remember, the development of this thread went something like this:

The Other Greg posted that his Dorsai squads would use clouds of remotes to augment their effectiveness.

Someone else replied that it would make more sense to assign control of such remotes to a single dedicated trooper.

I posted in support of that reply, pointing out that the training and experience needed to control remote drones in a combat environment was be both time-consuming and expensive, so most military forces would concentrate the training on just one specialist. 

The Other Gred replied with his supposition that his Dorsai would not need such special training because - by the late 22nd century - their infants would be "wired from birth" for drone control, all their three year olds would be accustomed to perceiving reality through remote sensor feeds from all the other members of his/her family and that all their third graders would be communicating each other and the rest of the world through "nural networks.."

After struggling not to bust out laughing, I pointed out that if infants and toddlers were wired thusly, then they would never achieve a human sense of self, that they would be - for want of a better term - aliens.

The Other Greg mistook my meaning entirely, going off on a strange jag about using politically correct language, that I should call them "extraterrestrial cultures," that the word "alien" was "so '70s."

I replied by pointing out that my use of "alien" had nothing to do with location and everything to do with lack of humanity. That "alien" in this sense meant "not of previous human experience."

It was at this point that The Other Greg began to get all nit-picky about the exact definition of "wired for" and even deny that he meant these modifications would be applied to infants and toddlers, insisting that he had only referred to adults receiving such modifications.

Never mind the fact that neural pathways (*especially* if biological) which were left UNUSED for 18 years in a brain that is growing and changing continually from infant to adult would cease to have any useful connections by the time you needed these.

And also never mind the fact that the original reason he proposed this early wiring was to GET AROUND the need to implant and train someone in the use of these controls AS AN ADULT.