the use of being""

[ZHUOC614]

Is the function of "being" different in these two sentences.
1.Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear. (Source: gmat prep; also in the OG verbal supplement) (Gerund; not passive)
2.During the 1950s, as part of their therapy, young polio victims learning to live with their disabilities were helped to practice falling, so that they could learn to fall without being hurt.(source: gmat prep) (again, passive voice gerund)

These are examples used by Ron. But I'm confused why the 1st one is not used as passive?

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

The first one is like "being stubborn" or "being proud".

"Passive" would mean that someone/something else was "committing" the executives to this course of action; that's nonsense, of course.
By contrast, "being hurt" does mean that something else is hurting the people.

[ZHUOC614]

Hi Ron,

Thanks a lot for your reply.

So do you mean that the usage in the first sentence is like "being adjective" verb object. Committed in this sentence is an adjective rather than a v-ed?

Additionally, can we just change the first several words in to a noun phrase?

EG.

Heavy commitment to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

Thanks a lot!

[RonPurewal]

Committed in this sentence is an adjective rather than a v-ed?

The pink words puzzle me. It's both of those things.
One of the major functions of "__ed" forms is to modify nouns. I.e., to act as adjectives. That's what is happening here.

If your real question is "Is this an adjective, and not a past-tense verb?", then the answer is yes.

[RonPurewal]

Additionally, can we just change the first several words in to a noun phrase?

EG.

Heavy commitment to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

Thanks a lot!

In this context——which is limited to discussing commitment to a (one) course of action——this alteration doesn't seem to produce any significant change in meaning.

As always, though, it's impossible to generalize without taking context into account.

For instance:
• "Being stubborn made Michael do xxxx" does NOT imply that Michael is constitutionally or habitually stubborn; it implies only that he was "being stubborn" in this one situation, and that certain consequences ensued.
• "Stubbornness made Michael do xxxx", on the other hand, implies that stubbornness is an innate/consistent/habitual personality trait exhibited by Michael (as well as that it had particular consequences this time).