People who think of themselves as acting strategically *in a superior fashion* remind me a bit of people who think of themselves as gifted prognosticators or forecasters, people whom Philip Tetlock has shown are mostly wrong in their self-understanding. The few forecasters--and thus perhaps strategists--who really are better, in Tetlock's analysis, are generally humble about their practices, often work in teams, shift their approaches often, are very heterodox in the kind of data and thinking they value, etc. So yeah, someone who touts themselves AS a superior strategist who is offering a reproducible strategic method that conforms to fixed guidelines or principles is almost by definition not what they claim to be.
People who think of themselves as acting strategically *in a superior fashion* remind me a bit of people who think of themselves as gifted prognosticators or forecasters, people whom Philip Tetlock has shown are mostly wrong in their self-understanding. The few forecasters--and thus perhaps strategists--who really are better, in Tetlock's analysis, are generally humble about their practices, often work in teams, shift their approaches often, are very heterodox in the kind of data and thinking they value, etc. So yeah, someone who touts themselves AS a superior strategist who is offering a reproducible strategic method that conforms to fixed guidelines or principles is almost by definition not what they claim to be.
I’ve always wondered about the genesis of the neocon position. The 1986 Paret edition seems to support it.
I read your entire review, but I still don't know if you recommend it or not. Are there books I should read instead of this one?