Yeah that’s how I see it too. Political strategist types can’t understand that not everything is a grand strategy. They assume if they can’t understand the strategy it must be 5-D chess or whatever. But maybe there is no strategy, and they’re just being idiots?
It’s game theory terminology, like flight is a “strategy”, not that the bird (or bacterial spore or whatever) has the slightest clue about what it’s doing.
It sounds better than “what works is what works”, I guess.
In the biological/evolutionary world “strategy” has a very different meaning than the colloquial usage here. we know animals, bacteria, plants, etc can’t actively “strategize” like humans do.
If a monkey does something, sees that it works, and continues doing that, is that a “strategy”? I suppose that depends on one’s POV, at which point it doesn’t seem “wrong” to say it, nor wrong to not say it.
Yeah that’s how I see it too. Political strategist types can’t understand that not everything is a grand strategy. They assume if they can’t understand the strategy it must be 5-D chess or whatever. But maybe there is no strategy, and they’re just being idiots?
It’s game theory terminology, like flight is a “strategy”, not that the bird (or bacterial spore or whatever) has the slightest clue about what it’s doing.
It sounds better than “what works is what works”, I guess.
In the biological/evolutionary world “strategy” has a very different meaning than the colloquial usage here. we know animals, bacteria, plants, etc can’t actively “strategize” like humans do.
If a monkey does something, sees that it works, and continues doing that, is that a “strategy”? I suppose that depends on one’s POV, at which point it doesn’t seem “wrong” to say it, nor wrong to not say it.