strategy vs tactics

[deicruxified]

i think i suck big time on the latter.

[TruorTupnm]

Ah. Have a gob of sympathy, then. I hear that they taste like pineapple. :-? Anyways, I believe that I have the same problem, but I wouldn't announce it the same way. I'd do it more like, "I am the greatest strategist of all time! You go away! Tactics are for the weak! Strategy is, erm, where 'it' happens to be!" ::)

[logan235711]

tactics work better on short-term things and strategy on long-term. tactics cumulate, strategy goes for one fell swoop with a series of contingencies.

unfortunately, we don't live long enough to create some masterful strategy.

[StJimmy]

tactics are simply situational. knowing when and how to apply a certain tactic, or how to counter your opponent, is the key. timing is crucial. from a military viewpoint, basic tactics are taught in training to every grunt, and as such are learned behaviors for application in specific situations. of course you can take this paradigm and apply it to whatever you want.

[Nomad]

The tactics basic infantry are taught are not worth the word. It's muscle memory, no thought is required. For example, when ambushed, pivot into the ambush and counterattack, charging forward while laying down suppressive fire until you have a visible target, service the target, failure drill down targets as you pass until the enemy breaks or you have penetrated their lines.

This is a drill, not a tactic. In AIT, I led a patrol during training where I was supposed to engage in a movement over bad terrain, and we arrived at a deep gully perpendicular to our travel. It was pretty much a death trap, and we were supposed to walk into the ambush set up on the other side. I stopped the patrol and sent scouts out on the flanks, and it pissed my drill sergeant off, until he heard what I thought and decided to indulge me.

My plan was to send scouts, locate the enemies position, lay a hare while I divided my patrol around both flanks and engage the enemy from the rear. it worked quite well. Elements of the Third Ranger battalion acted as OPFOR, and we engaged them from the rear from high ground. My patrol destroyed a company sized element, which had never happened before. We were supposed to be taken out in the bottom of the gully. it would not have worked in real combat, because the Rangers were complacent, but i knew that, and used it to my advantage.

I stole the idea ( with modifications) from Julius Caesar. He used it roll up Pompey.

I saw no point in walking into an ambush when I could set my own.We were supposed to conduct a drill, instead, I applied tactics. I did this a lot, on all our field exercises, and I only "lost" one person to "enemy" fire during my entire basic infantry training. Did a lot of pushups for it as well, but I was Fasttracked and graduated from OSUT with honors. After I graduated from RIP two months later, the LT who commanded the OPFOR Rangers asked that I be assigned to his company. He lacked the slot and I wound up in Germany.

Later on, I served in combat, and my assigned missions were strategic in nature, that is, pinpoint missions that theater wide war plans rested on. Of course, I didn't know it at the time, and if we had failed, they would have simply sent someone else to finish the job.

The only difference between strategy and tactics are the scale you think and work on . What your basic grunt is taught are drills designed to increase his survival rate in combat, done repetitively to help ensure he acts in combat, and does not not freeze. In my mind, there is no real difference in how thought is applied to strategy and tactics, except perhaps that tactics tend to be more fluid. If you start thinking "strategy", vs "tactics", you lock yourself into a mental box. They are just words, and set definitions should be guarded against at times because they can limit your thinking.

Just a thought.

-Nomad

[StJimmy]

and a goodly thought at that. i had hoped this thread would illicit the response of a trained military mind, and i thank you for the elaboration.

[rwyatt365]

The only difference between strategy and tactics are the scale you think and work on . What your basic grunt is taught are drills designed to increase his survival rate in combat, done repetitively to help ensure he acts in combat, and does not not freeze. In my mind, there is no real difference in how thought is applied to strategy and tactics, except perhaps that tactics tend to be more fluid. If you start thinking "strategy", vs "tactics", you lock yourself into a mental box. They are just words, and set definitions should be guarded against at times because they can limit your thinking.
Nomad, great thought and great example(s). While I don't have an military experience I can see a connection between this and the business arena (where all of my "battles" have been fought).

A great deal of energy is directed towards differentiating "strategy" from "tactics" and I find it all to be a big steaming pile. As Nomad says, the difference is in scale and scope. Strategy takes into account the entire operation (whether it be a theater of war, or the operation of a corporation) with a focus on what will accomplish a desired end. Tactics "shrinks" the focus to a particular arena (a battlefield, or the buyout of a competitor) with a focus on what will be necessary to affect a "victory".

IMHO anyone with a sufficiently visionary mind can easily move between tactical and strategic thought without effort. Unfortunately, most organizations (military, and corporate) can't see that and tend to pigeon-hole people into certain limited areas, thus denying them (and the organization) of the benefit of those visionary minds.

[blueback]

The world is a system and the key to understanding a system is to accept that you can't analyze the pieces and still understand the whole.

Strategy and tactics are just different levels of the same system. It's like a fractal; you can zoom in (or out) all you want but you will always see the same picture.

I suppose the very real difference between them is the amount of personal risk involved. Usually, if you're close enough to a tactical situation to make a good decision you are in very real danger. You can analyze a strategic situation from a position of physical safety.

I'm in the Air Force and one of my favorite hobbies is irritating the fighter pilots by talking about how unmanned aircraft are the way of the future. A report I read about the Predator, written by an AF officer at the Pentagon, actually said the UAVs are "crack for generals." Because for the first time in their career they can be sitting safely in the US and direct a tactical situation in the MidEast. The technology bridges the strategic and tactical levels by allowing someone to direct a tactical situation the same way they direct a strategic situation. They can switch from viewing a map of the entire battlefield to a direct video feed of a squad-on-squad firefight.

[Nomad]

Yes, I remember well the first time we had that gee whiz bang interactive video feed via satellite and I had some perfectly intelligent, highly trained and experienced officer turn into a numbfuck because he "could see" my situation and decided to run my op on a different continent from Virginia. Debrief went something like this:

What happened to the satellite link, Sergeant?

I don't know sir. I have not had the chance to inspect the equipment.

You don't know?

No sir, I'm not a technician.

You are cross trained as both a long range radio operator and as a satellite communications specialist.

Yes sir.

You didn't disable it?

No sir. That would be beyond the scope of my training.

Aide interrupts. Sir there appears to be two bullet holes in the transceiver.

Sergeant?

Yes sir?

Where did these bullet holes come from?

I can't be certain sir, but probably from the three snipers covering the courtyard you determined to be safe. After you ordered us into the courtyard, we were engaged by three snipers.

I didn't see any snipers.

No sir, I'm sure you didn't.

Why didn't you tell me there were snipers?

If they heard me speak, our position would have been compromised. That would be bad, sir.

Why, then, sergeant, did you enter the courtyard?

You gave me a direct order, sir. You determined the courtyard to be safe, and threatened me with disobeying a direct order.

Why didn't you try to reestablish communications?

I was trying to keep my men alive sir.

So you risked your men unnecessarily?

No sir, you did. You took direct command of the op, if you recall.

Sergeant, you are insubordinate!

With all due respect, no sir, merely stating a fact.

Now, what happened was my ATL got frustrated by the officer trying to control the op,, which he could hear, and leaned over and fired two shots through the transceiver, which was strapped to the back of my vest. We were under fire, and I did not lie about the situation.

The upshot:

General officer: Captain, you are aware that you cannot win medals from an office chair in Virginia?

Sir?

In this facility, after your op orders are given, you are a spectator, not a shooter.
Remember it, you're dismissed.

Yes sir.

Captain leaves.

Sergeant, that was a very expensive equipment that was destroyed.

Yes sir.

I happen to think my men are more valuable.

Yes sir. We appreciate that.

Please finish your report...

After that, I had an enemy in the captain and a friend in the general. Unfortunately not all officers are that good, but the ones that could not handle sitting back don't last while working ops like ours.

-Nomad

[Max T]

Very interesting reading the military angles.

A few thoughts from a business angle:
"A weak strategy brilliantly executed will outperform a great strategy poorly executed" (execution = tactics). *
This is so true. *
Time and again I've seen (and done!) elaborate strategies that were detached from organisational (i.e. people and assets) capabilities to deliver the strategy. *
Without structure delivering, the strategy isn't worth anything. * INTJs may be vulnerable to this?

When this detachment occurs, it is equally likely that the strategy is also detached from the environment (the market) it has to impact. *
'Ivory tower' strategy formulation- a bit like Nomad's officer's error example.



The US air force developed a way to outmanouver (sp?) rivals with OODA loops (Observe, Orient (incoming information) Decide and Act... Observe Orient). *
The idea is that by going through your OODA loop from observing to acting more quickly than your rival's, they gradually become disoriented by your increasingly rapid tactical moves. * The strategy is often predictable (full-on attack of enemy) but the execution (tactics) make it devestating.

Toyota applied this to US car companies by bringing out new car models every 3 years versus US companies every 5+ years- compressed OODA loops.
I agree with blueback- unmanned planes are the future- they are the ultimate compressed OODA loop- no human delay in observing, orienting, deciding etc.

Another US army development that is the future are hi-tech weapons that the enemy does not know they are being attacked with... until they're stunned/dead (sound waves, thermal 'lasers'). * With such weapons, you don't have the enemy interfering with your OODA loop- an ideal situation to disable them quicker.


Nomad's "interactive video feed via satellite" sounds familiar- in business its digital performance dashboards where you see in real-time how a business is performing.
The risk perhaps with such technology is that the tactics look so compelling that they start shaping the strategy- tail wags dog.

In some parts of business, strategy seems to be so rapidly imitated, competitive advantages so temporary, that the only advantage comes from short-lived brilliant execution of tactics (e.g. dot.coms internet tactics).


For an INTJ, strategy is surely more sexy than tactics... and tactical delivery can become so boring- yep Deicruxified, I'm rubbish at tactics and unfortunately they often matter hugely.

Same tactics v. strategy issues seem to arise in business and military it seems (now where's that business book on Sun Tsu... Clausewitz... US fighter plane tactics).

[blueback]

I think you're right. Although tactics and strategy are inherently the same thing, tactical situations resolve much faster than strategic ones. That can lead to the problem of being distracted by all the tactical situations and ignoring the strategic (winning the battles but not the war).

In addition, I think INTJs prefer strategy to tactics because their natural strength is figuring things out. Strategic situations give us much more to chew on and take longer than tactical ones. Tactical situations are very repetetive and. . .boring. . .to an INTJ. The difference between "The enemy has two companies approaching us over a 10 mile stretch, what are we going to do?" and "The squad is in front of us, flank them. Okay, there's a new squad in front of us, flank them. We can bypass this concentration of enemies, flank them, etc" is huge.

[Nomad]

:laugh:

I suppose tactics are boring when looked at from a nice comfortable chair, however, I can't recall ever being bored when everywhere I turned, hostile people bent on death in a spectacular shower of body parts were trying their utmost to fulfill their fantasy of my untimely death.

That was big dammit funny, no kidding.

-Nomad

[Paul V]

I have a rather simplistic way of portraying how I feel about Strategy vs. Tactics.

I have an INTJ friend I met over the Internet. He was the one that introduced me to the Myers-Briggs test, and with whom I share a passion for D&D.

Whenever I play with him (and I usually try to play WITH him. Because trust me, when I play against him, the mind games between us reach epic proportions), we plot our strategy together (I can assure you with 100% certainty there's nothing deadlier than two INTJs plotting), and then each of us often takes the lead on one half of the party and we each devise our own tactics depending on what we encounter. Even though we're both big fans of contingency planning, he has told me time after time that as the variables rise, so do the chances of failure.

Which is why both Strategy and Tactics are extremely important. One cannot enter a battlefield (take "battlefield" as a metaphore and replace it with what you wish) without a clear plan you have follow in order to win (Strategy). It's what set us apart from the "S" types. Their strength isn't planning ahead, and since about 65% of the population is like that, having a plan gives you an edge. However, there is the disadvantage I've mentioned before. You cannot forsee all the possible variables that might interfere with your plan and ruin. Even though we can use our secret weapon (contingency plans), there's a limit to what they can do. Which is why Tactics exist. They are not only the execution of a Strategy, but they are also the way to deal with unknown variables that attempt to foil your plans. Without Tactics, you're relying on luck. Without Strategy, you're relying on the hope that your oponent has not tried to forsee your actions and has not come up with a clever way to screw you.

I hope this was understandable! I had a hard time making it somewhat coherent.

[deicruxified]

@Nomad
- the military example cleared everything up. thanks a lot. and at the same time, i encountered in a forum 16types.com wherein j and p with correlation to strategy vs tactics. well in my case since you mentioned training for survival, i was reflecting on myself in practicing martial arts. yes we do practice moves in aikido for defense that when cornered we know what to do. i do get the big picture of every technique thought but then i was also thinking about what's gonna happen when faced with a real situation and was even thinking of my very own "grandeur killing strategies" when "the time comes". i did encounter a maniac on the streets and kicked his ass for sometime. that was fluid in my case since i've been practicing aikido for more than 6 years. but the fact i have to face now is not every situation is the same and thinking on spot won't save my ass for the next attack i will be facing.

thus, my title "strategy vs tactics" coz i do think i suck at latter. for me traditional aikido as compared to other martial arts is rather "simulated" than almost near "real life" since we don't have hardcore sparring sessions. i also played tae kwon do for 5 years and based on experience with competitions i've been, i really suck on tactics since the training i had in tae kwon do was not as pre-emptive and intuitive as aikido but more of "impulse" and "sensing". although this may seem off-topic, i find this one the closest i could reflect on with regards to strategy and tactics.

i still need clarifications though

[Max T]

:laugh:

I suppose tactics are boring when looked at from a nice comfortable chair, however, I can't recall ever being bored when everywhere I turned, hostile people bent on death in a spectacular shower of body parts were trying their utmost to fulfill their fantasy of my untimely death.

That was big dammit funny, no kidding.
-Nomad
Sure- life and death tactical situations might spark a little interest.
I was thinking of the days spent in a new location waiting for further action. Ingrained, intuitive-yet-time-consuming-to-implement tactics. Dull.

Presumably you agree that tactics are as equally important as strategy, as I was suggesting. :thumbsup:

[rwyatt365]

If I'm reading the responses correctly one could generalize and say that INTJs excel at strategy because of the "blue-sky", big-picture aspects of that arena. Also, INTJs can manage in a tactical arena but somewhat less so because that has a higher "S" component (i.e. "feeling" the situation and acting accordingly). However, we compensate by bringing our "N" into play to intuit a response and execute accordingly.

Any takers on this theory?

[Max T]

If I'm reading the responses correctly one could generalize and say that INTJs excel at strategy because of the "blue-sky", big-picture aspects of that arena. Also, INTJs can manage in a tactical arena but somewhat less so because that has a higher "S" component (i.e. "feeling" the situation and acting accordingly). However, we compensate by bringing our "N" into play to intuit a response and execute accordingly.

Any takers on this theory?
Yes I agree.
To add, strategy formulation is a creative exercise fitting our dominant Intuitive side...
and it also involves analysing patterns fitting our secondary Thinking part.

But the Introverted part of me makes it difficult to execute via tactics since delivery invariably involves others... which also requires F to handle them... and S as you suggest. Arrggh!
Pity my work has little strategy and a lot of tactics. :scared:

[Nomad]

If I'm reading the responses correctly one could generalize and say that INTJs excel at strategy because of the "blue-sky", big-picture aspects of that arena. Also, INTJs can manage in a tactical arena but somewhat less so because that has a higher "S" component (i.e. "feeling" the situation and acting accordingly). However, we compensate by bringing our "N" into play to intuit a response and execute accordingly.

Any takers on this theory?
Close, but I had a gestalt moment this morning. It has to do with where your mind is on the timeline. We assess the past in order to predict the future. (Way oversimplified, i know) = strategy.

Tactics mean you have to exist in the moment you are currently occupying.

I would very much like to explain my thinking, but it will be a long post. may I have permission?

-Nomad

[deicruxified]

If I'm reading the responses correctly one could generalize and say that INTJs excel at strategy because of the "blue-sky", big-picture aspects of that arena. Also, INTJs can manage in a tactical arena but somewhat less so because that has a higher "S" component (i.e. "feeling" the situation and acting accordingly). However, we compensate by bringing our "N" into play to intuit a response and execute accordingly.

Any takers on this theory?
Close, but I had a gestalt moment this morning. It has to do with where your mind is on the timeline. We assess the past in order to predict the future. (Way oversimplified, i know) = strategy.

Tactics mean you have to exist in the moment you are currently occupying.

I would very much like to explain my thinking, but it will be a long post. may I have permission?

-Nomad
definitely.... since you're more knowledgeable on this one, i do personally think you'd have to elaborate further on this as i, myself am confused with this side of the intj. i do got a shallow idea of what tactics mean so it's gonna be a big help if you do.

[Nomad]

Thank you. A little about me as background. I grew up semi rural poor. I had to learn to hunt in order to help provide food for my family when I was younger. Deicruxified pointed that she was having trouble with tactics. I maintain that there is no difference in how thought is applied in tactics and strategy.

INTJ's, wonderful though we are, have trouble with being in the moment. We lose objects, because as someone pointed out, we are not "there" when we put the object down. We have a reputation for being forgetful. this is because are minds are constantly working, assessing both the past and considering future plans and options, we are constantly contingency planning and analyzing ( or over analyzing, which can lead to paralysis of action) We miss details, for a number of reasons, sometimes because we've jumped nine steps ahead of the conversation. while you were plugging things in, living in the future and past simultaneously, the other person stated some vital detail which you then missed.

If you are always seeing patterns, you must, to some extent, step out of the moment you are in. Your mind is effectively in a number of places on the time line all at once. This is an INTJ trait. And a flaw. and an advantage. Like all things, it is a two edged sword.

I described tactics as more fluid earlier, and others have echoed the idea in other words. Tactics are real time, they are happening now with no time for assessment. yet we try. I think IMO, that tactics are a function of sensing and perception, which we are weak in. We are not really in tune with our environment as it exists in that moment.

For tactics, you must live in the moment. or you will not continue to live. it's a function of being aware of and considering only what's happening right now, at every moment, these are functions of sensing and perception.

Tactics have been described as boring, because of the waiting for something to do. You are doing something. You are waiting.

I recognize myself quite well in all of you, and there is no doubt I'm an INTJ, doctors have administered the test four times, with the same result. That being said, I note some differences as well, ( I hope so, I hate to be a robot, and it's been pointed out that these tests are not absolute.) But I had to learn these things. I believe there is a thread asking if it's possible to change your personality. While I think we are hardwired to a great extent, it is quite possible to train other functions to make them usable.

I learned to hunt early, and if you try to analyze a deer's behavior analytically, you are doomed to frustration. It's a deer. It wants to eat, sleep, procreate and not be eaten. That's it. If you think too much about it, you go hungry. You need patience to simply exist in that moment, to wait until it's time to act, and you have to act. but you have to be paying attention to the moment. Zen requires that you live in that moment, and that moment alone, to simplify your existence to a single instant, live that moment wholly, and do this constantly. This is being enlightened. You ever notice how many advanced Zen practitioners never seem tired, or bored or stressed? Why be stressed? they say, The next moment will come, or it won't. Meanwhile, we are trying to put Zen in it's current socioplitical context in regards to Western scientific reductionism, the relationship to Buddhism, the history of feudal Japan, Samurai ethics, societal impact of religious syncretism in the Japanese descended population in predominately Catholic South America, how the Vatican intends to either exploit or repress this trend, how the Vatican has responded to these challenges in the past, the differences in policy from John Paul to the current Pope, how this Popes policies affects oil prices in the Middle East, and it's response to the Taliban destruction of several Buddhist monuments.........

The Zen person is smiling serenely, enjoying their tea. Talk about frustrating. We may be brilliant, but they are content and happy. The best martial artists I ever met had the Zen thing down pat. Unbelievable situational awareness and reflexes. Just amazing.

My work after the military required both skills, I developed my sensing and perception through practice and it was not easy. I just locked my mind into what was right in front of me. I observed the shadows around me, listened to my environment instead of tuning it out, learned patience from hunting and perfected it in sniper school. I watched peoples faces and body language and I paid close attention to what they were saying (or not saying) and really listening, no matter how stupid they were, (and it saved my life at least twice) I will not lie, it's unnatural for me to think like that. An ex once commented that for someone with my job, I was very unobservant. that's because it's utterly exhausting and in my off time I wanted to be myself.

Strategy is a function that sits in context that lets you step out of linear time, to assess all the causes and effects. This is our strength, and it can be argued that this is what we are.

tactics are real time, in that moment, act or die.

If we want to improve our tactics, we must narrow our perception to only the moment we currently occupy, and disregard implications and causes.

This is more complex in my head, but it's early, and i will elaborate if requested., but not now. I'm sleepy.

Comments?

-Nomad

[blueback]

I think you're right.

One of the things I've been struggling with for. . .ever, is that I'll forget a thing I need to do or take until I am about 100 yards away from where I was. Then, it becomes a question of whether or not it's worth going back. Your post gave me a new perspective on that. It's almost like I have a blank spot "right now" and I can't remember I need to do or have something until it is literally "in the past." Over a long time I've managed to develop the ability to feel when I've forgotten something and I'm still working on not dismissing it. It's a subtle feeling and I have to stop what I'm doing, usually planning my next 5 steps, and pay attention to it.

That is one of the reasons I like sports, anything which requires a lot of physicality requires you to focus on the moment.

Now that I think about it, your examples about combat are meaningful too. I used to play paintball quite a lot but playing it actually helped convince me to join the Air Force instead of the Marines. I realized that even in a game where the "bullets" only travel 50 yards and can be deflected by leaves I died waaaay too often. It was the long walk back to the holding area when I had time to think about how useless I'd be in a real combat situation. My place is days before the conflict, analyzing the terrain and laying out possible strategies, and days after the conflict, compiling lessons-learned.

[Max T]

So tactics need Sensing and Perception.
And, on the premise that tactics have a high(er) 'people component' due to their interaction with the environment, Extroverted Feelers would gain more satisfaction from tactics than I and T types.

It increasingly appears that:
INTJ = strategists... and their polar opposite
ESFP = tacticians.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
ESFPs are dominant Sensing (INTJ dominant Intuition) "cooperative, 'here and now' people-persons that enjoy excitement and love new adventures. ESFPs have a practical side that allows them to finish work efficiently and are often good problem solvers."

[Blacklustre King]

Since I have coordinated many mock battles with associates I have come to the conclusion that an overall strategy is essential however that strategy must always be flexible enough to allow absolutely any tactility.

I’ am a Tactical Strategist so to speak.

I always win...

[Zilal]

It's a simple dichotomy for me... I'm more comfortable with stuff I can plan for and take my time with, so I'm more comfortable with strategy. But I think any INTJ could also be excellent with tactics given enough experience. If more INTJs go into strategy... say, more end up as generals... it's not due to an inability to learn to practice tactics, but a preference for strategy.

[jdc127]

@ Nomad
"You need patience to simply exist in that moment, to wait until it's time to act, and you have to act. but you have to be paying attention to the moment. Zen requires that you live in that moment, and that moment alone, to simplify your existence to a single instant, live that moment wholly, and do this constantly. This is being enlightened. "

I think this set of skills can help anyone in any context, especially INTJ's with their heads every but the present. I am a practitioner of Zen and I have read quite a bit on the subject. My take varies a bit from what you wrote.

I don't think it is about simplifying one's existance at all. In fact it is very difficult for people to be mindful within the present moment. Zen teaches that only this moment exists, and that the flow of time is an optical illusion causes by moment after moment rising up and fading away to give birth to a new moment. This happens so quickly that any thought or action we engage in happens over a multitude of moments. So, drinking tea or outflanking your enemy requires a state of mindfullness, not a state of simplicity.

In other words, if you are drinking a cup of tea, why be on autopilot and never taste or experience it because your mind is doing a million other things? If you are developing long-term strategy or applying short term tactics, then that is what you should be focused on. Zen teaches people to do what they are doing and not to forget that.

[xhaan]

Sorry, haven't read through all the posts...

A tactic, is pretty much a direct method for specific instances.
It doesn't matter whether it is learned, or muscle memory. Door breaching methods are a TACTIC, inverted rapelling is a TACTIC, room clearing is TACTICAL. They are all tactically derived, whether or not the person executing them actually thinks about it or not.

Strategy can be more general and 'big picture', possibly the same picture, but looking at it with broader strokes, and possibly indirectly.

tac·tic /ˈtæktɪk/
–noun
1. tactics (def. 1).
2. a system or a detail of tactics.
3. a plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result.
–adjective
4. of or pertaining to arrangement or order; tactical.

strat·e·gy
–noun, plural -gies.
1. Also, strategics. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.
2. the use or an instance of using this science or art.
3. skillful use of a stratagem: The salesperson's strategy was to seem always to agree with the customer.
4. a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world.

[errrzarrr]

Is there any science/Engineering/discipline that teaches Strategy?

[xhaan]

Is there any science/Engineering/discipline that teaches Strategy?

Possibly game theory, just off the top of my head. (studying Chess and such, for example, not just how to play but the ramifications of all the moves, whether or not it is possible to 'always win', etc.)

(It also has not much to do with actual board games, it can be applied to nearly anything where there are two or more 'players', even real life situations.)

[Capt57]

A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.
George S. Patton

[Zilal]

Is there any science/Engineering/discipline that teaches Strategy?

Well, sort of, though it may not be what you're thinking of. Traffic engineers, I suppose, study traffic patterns and set up plans for new roadways. There are certainly strategies needed for disaster prevention (where to put the levees, when to do a controlled burn on a dry forest, etc.). In a general sense, there's a lot of strategy in science and engineering, because both those disciplines are to a large extent about problem-solving. It's not really the same as war or strategy games though.

[1OFMANY]

I always thought of it like this...

Tactics= a single instrument
Strategy= The entire orchestra


Hey nomad..are you a batboy?

[iamnotspock]

A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.
George S. Patton

That is why Eisenhower stationed Patton in Calais for the invasion of Normandy ;-)

Of course, he was a brilliant general, and Eisenhower also said that while planning is everything, plans are nothing.

[Capt57]

That is why Eisenhower stationed Patton in Calais for the invasion of Normandy ;-)

Of course, he was a brilliant general, and Eisenhower also said that while planning is everything, plans are nothing.

Do you know any good biographies on Eisenhower? I just finished one on Truman that I loved.

[xhaan]

Well, sort of, though it may not be what you're thinking of. Traffic engineers, I suppose, study traffic patterns and set up plans for new roadways. There are certainly strategies needed for disaster prevention (where to put the levees, when to do a controlled burn on a dry forest, etc.). In a general sense, there's a lot of strategy in science and engineering, because both those disciplines are to a large extent about problem-solving. It's not really the same as war or strategy games though.

These are the type of things that game theory helps solve, planning doesn't always work in a vacuum, you need to know what to expect people to do (or things.. or possibilities).

Game theory has been used in everything from business to computer programming to evolution theory.

[iamnotspock]

Do you know any good biographies on Eisenhower? I just finished one on Truman that I loved.

I don't. But I'd love to read one. I really respect the guy. Cut from a whole different cloth than the current crop, it seems.

[James Revell]

@ Nomad
"You need patience to simply exist in that moment, to wait until it's time to act, and you have to act. but you have to be paying attention to the moment. Zen requires that you live in that moment, and that moment alone, to simplify your existence to a single instant, live that moment wholly, and do this constantly. This is being enlightened. "

I think this set of skills can help anyone in any context, especially INTJ's with their heads every but the present. I am a practitioner of Zen and I have read quite a bit on the subject. My take varies a bit from what you wrote.


One of the problems INTJ write-ups often indicate is that if we let our Ni take too strong of a role then it can too frequently enlist our Te to judge input and filter out too much. Our intuition works better as a background process, building complex structures/patterns for us to call on later. By developing the more zen-like approach and living in the moment it's a little easier to suspend judgement of input and let the process happen naturally.

Also, through living (more) wholly in the moment you gradually learn to expand your focus, even if mostly when consciously trying. We're generally pretty good at the narrow focus thing, but being able to function well with different antenae configurations can make us much more flexible. Getting back to the original topic, it also makes it easier to switch back and forth between the strategic and the tactical, though the transition time can be a bitch.

While most of us won't have battlefield experience to instill these things, it's not hard to simulate the basics. I do a number of high-risk individualized sports requiring near constant attention so the possibility of pain or death (or looking like an idiot) never being more than a few seconds away pretty much keeps you in either the moment or the next 2-3 moments.

You can think stragically all you want, but you have to be able to act tactically in each moment in accordance a strategy to reach the goal. We're not just thinker's -- we apply our insight to make things happen. Like someone already mentioned, tactics and strategy are mainly a matter of scope. Each has it's place in any good plan.

[AgentofGaming]

Is there any science/Engineering/discipline that teaches Strategy?
Courses I've taken
Engineering Strategies and Practice I, for first year first semester
Engineering Strategies and Practice II, for first year second semester
Engineering Communication and Design I, for second year first semester
Engineering Communication and Design II, for second year second semester

They teach you have to work in a team, communicate effectively, plan big projects, production models, ways to come up with ideas, thinking outside the box, how to use ideas with practically, making technology more human favourable, programming design etc.

Systems Engineering perhaps is all about approaching things the right way.

[ssfanatic]

I favor tactics actually. I think they relate better to dealing with people, which i think i can manipulate well.

[Max T]

Interesting blog comment on the proneness for many company workers to inaccurately claim that they are 'strategists', when INTJs are the minority most likely capable of genuine strategic thinking:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

... it also inspires us to incorporate 'strategic-ness' in the workplace, irrespective of our actual role.

[iamnotspock]

That was a great post. I loved this:

"So, for the most part, if you need to see something in order to do strategy then you are not doing strategy, you’re doing editing."

Ha ha. If I had a nickel for every blow-dried shit-for-brains in the marketing dept. who confidently disclosed to me that he's really a master strategist who will soon be running the place . . .

The way you know you're a strategist is that everyone works for you -- and you don't pay them a freakin' dime. In the best case, they don't even know who you are.

[Scooby]

With all due respect,

Nomad those words are like swallowing razor blades for officer types! There are some good ones, but when I was in it was just a job. Most of our better ones came from Nam. I spent alot of time, because a good officer noticed me, in Central America. Sucks to be able to see the big picture and get results sometimes.

[Nomad]

I always thought of it like this...

Tactics= a single instrument
Strategy= The entire orchestra


Hey nomad..are you a batboy?


Nope, never served in the bats. I came through an LRSD unit in Germany that got tasked with a lot of things that don't fall under that designation. I went through Ranger school and a lot of NATO schools. Did a lot of joint ops with 10th Group,and a lot of joint ops with allied Special Operations because of my skill set, and got pulled from SOFT during that last FX and got sent to the Gulf. I served with 5th Group there and managed to torpedo my career. I see that they've pulled Desert phase. I miss the salty dry air of Dugway. Such a lovely place.

-Nomad

[coffeeloverfreak]

Strategy is the plan to achieve the objective.

Tactics are the plans to achieve each individual strategy.

[intellael]

I am the typical INTJ in terms of strategy vs tactics. Thanks for the clarity Nomad. Planning comes more naturally for me. Tactics, although I can use them, tap my reserves. In life, it is the sudden changes I did not anticipate, that rock my world. People are often deceived by that trait. In times of adversity I seem stoic. However, it is not because I am tactical, it is because those situations I have planned for. If I am put into a chaotic fast paced environment I will drain much quicker than a tactician. At some point I will have to retreat, reassess and re-group.

[radames]

I just bought "The 33 Strategies of War." Very good book so far.

[Valiyn]

I just bought "The 33 Strategies of War." Very good book so far.

I wasn't all that impressed with it personally.

INTJs are much better at the strategic level because most of us never learn to make use of the functions needed to be in the moment and feel the flow of the battle. I believe that is why there is so few INTJs in military service today. I've always been interested in this but have such trouble with living in the moment to keep my away from recruiters. I've spent just under a thousand dollars on books, everything from logistics to war college textbooks, all dealing with the strategic aspect of war and in a number of cases it's relation to the tactical. The number of books I have on tactics? about 6 (not including ranger/marine manuals). Safe to say there is a very disproportional taste in interest there.

And I disagree with Nomad that the hunting has something to do with it. I hunt, do swordfighting in the SCA, archery. All are very much "in the moment". I think it has something to do with Fe and Ne. It's the manipulation of people and the patterns of those around you to a large extent.

[enWTFp]

i think i suck big time on the latter.Hah, this is probably one issue where the team INTJ+ENFP makes wonders. If INTJs have problems with tactics (we all know they excel in strategy), ENFPs (including me) tend to have problems with long-term strategy, but are among the best in tactics. Set an impossible goal to be accomplished in 36 hours and give it to an ENFP. We won't sleep, won't eat, we'll run around a city, fly around a country, get to the White House, etc, but we'll get it somehow. What others cannot do in a day, we can. Of course, then we need to rest for two days. But the point is that, especially in emergency, you hardly could get anyone better with tactics than ENFPs. As unfocused as we are in casual situations, the more focused and organized we are in a crisis. We switch in some mode, strangely resembling ENTJ - we bark orders, we have no fear, we push everything and everybody to the limits. Of course, this special mode cannot be overused, or at least it requires regular recharging comfort.

I've been in such situations alongside ENTJs, and frankly, I'm always pissed off with their slowness and indecisiveness! Apparently, Judgers are too reluctant to react fast to sudden extraordinary events, which they cannot grasp and plan their actions. Perceivers seem to be better suited for short-term planning, which must be done without full information about the environment. And for such type of tasks, we get better results, and we get them faster. That even includes organizing people better, as I've had a couple of opportunities to compare.

[Pandemonium]

I've been in such situations alongside ENTJs, and frankly, I'm always pissed off with their slowness and indecisiveness! Apparently, Judgers are too reluctant to react fast to sudden extraordinary events, which they cannot grasp and plan their actions. Perceivers seem to be better suited for short-term planning, which must be done without full information about the environment. And for such type of tasks, we get better results, and we get them faster. That even includes organizing people better, as I've had a couple of opportunities to compare.

It is interesting that you might say that. I have been playing 1000's of different computer games since i was 6 years old. My first game was good old doom. I migrated to RTS games quite fast. RTS both involves long term goals and objects and also short term tactics eg. How to best position units under attack to perform the most amount of damage to enemy units. After playing starcraft for 8 years i have learnt to predict my enemy's every possible move in any situation and to manipulate my enemy into doing what i want them to do to completely control the battle field. From playing FPS games i have gained the ability to learn my surroundings in great detail if i have only been there once.

The above concepts have been utilized in my everyday life. There hasn't been a single moment were i'm not "positioning" people to to where i want them be. I control the way people act and behave when they are around me to achieve long or short term objectives. It also hasn't helped when all i did in my spare time (when not playing computer games) was read psychology/body language text books.

My argument is that strategies and tactics can be learnt but also learning these increases your ability to develop them in the here and now. There is no point in using a "in the moment" tactic with out foreseeing how it will effect your long term strategy or future momentary tactics. The more you develop these more that you will be able to be more decisive in the moment.

Through out this thread someone else also said something that i believe is flawed "tactics require high sensing". Please correct me if i'm wrong. Isn't Sensing is collecting information from physical and real objects? I would think intuition would enable you to asses what an person or enemy is going to next. *shrugs* I can think of too many counter arguments.

The entirety of my family bar myself are enfp. They are very in the moment kind of people able to put great focus on one activity, where as myself continually think of everything else at the same time as doing the say one activity. There is nothing stopping a person from developing both side of the divide in great detail.

[Vagrant]

Am I strange as an INTJ when I prefer tactics over strategy?

I mean, if we're speaking on fighting level, I use tactics non-stop. It's evident when I play team games -- I'm always using the team dynamic to my advantage. And tactics is nothing more than personally applied strategy. You'll see it in Guild Wars when I'm kiting or being the utility/support character, or in Half Life 2 death match when I'll bait somebody and wait right around the corner. I even do some of these things in laser tag, and people hate me for it. :P

However, I don't actually like long-term strategies. I usually find that improvised strategies (hence tactics) work better.

[Cesare Borgia]

Why not be a master at both? use them together.

[SirJac]

I forget where I read this quote, but this thread reminds me of it.

"Tactics are what strategies become after the first shot is fired"