3 ms·
I think it does though, because the whole point of the article is shamelessness as a strategy, which means it has to be done knowingly to achieve the purpose.
by ackbar03 4y ago
I think it does though, because the whole point of the article is shamelessness as a strategy, which means it has to be done knowingly to achieve the purpose.
If she was unaware of it but reached the end result, good for her, but it doesn't support that she herself was knowingly following the strategy, which makes a big difference
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mikkergp 4y agoWhy is this a big difference? I might argue that the idea that you need to intellectualize a strategy may be one of the points dismissed by the article.. What does 'knowingly' mean in your case. A lot of high-performance work is about tuning your intuition, not your intellect. From the article: "The concept of a “genius mastermind” is itself outdated, because it assumes that someone needs to be in control. "
- jdhendrickson 4y agoI see what you are saying, and at first I agreed. Thinking on it more, there are lots of things that when examined rationally we can all agree is a strategy but it's not being done with any forethought. Or thought at all. Puffing your chest up and getting loud when getting into a fight, mirroring behavior, basically social strategies are not the same thing as war game strategies and you can blunder into doing the right thing and just keep doing it. They are strategies and they are very effective... much to my dismay, but they don't require intelligence.