In the chess example, why do you focus on a very specific win scenario rather than on the generalized victory condition of checkmate?
If we do not backchain or similar, how is what constitutes advantage determined? Or perhaps—how can we be confident what we are told constitutes advantage actually does?
How do we distinguish between things that are far in the future and take many steps from things that are far in the future and take few-but-slow steps? Do you suppose that inferential-distance might be a closer match to your objection than time-distance?
I’m trying to draw parallels to things like “We’re going to win this war by winning a large naval set piece battle somewhat to the east of the line connecting the Bonin and Mariana Islands”. Overspecific final plans is one of the weaknesses that this approach can lead to.
What constitutes advantage is usually somewhat overt. Even if the final goal is illegible, there are usually some promising trails to follow, and making progress on those is usually readily legible, as is building general capacity for your project/group. It’s important to test early and test often, of course!
I’m not quite sure what this question is cutting towards, could you perhaps rephrase it?
Good post! I have several questions:
In the chess example, why do you focus on a very specific win scenario rather than on the generalized victory condition of checkmate?
If we do not backchain or similar, how is what constitutes advantage determined? Or perhaps—how can we be confident what we are told constitutes advantage actually does?
How do we distinguish between things that are far in the future and take many steps from things that are far in the future and take few-but-slow steps? Do you suppose that inferential-distance might be a closer match to your objection than time-distance?
I’m trying to draw parallels to things like “We’re going to win this war by winning a large naval set piece battle somewhat to the east of the line connecting the Bonin and Mariana Islands”. Overspecific final plans is one of the weaknesses that this approach can lead to.
What constitutes advantage is usually somewhat overt. Even if the final goal is illegible, there are usually some promising trails to follow, and making progress on those is usually readily legible, as is building general capacity for your project/group. It’s important to test early and test often, of course!
I’m not quite sure what this question is cutting towards, could you perhaps rephrase it?