And the other way around, too, don’t forget Arthur Clarke’s “Superiority”. Of course, the losers there weren’t rationalists, just bureaucrats. There are plenty of people though who consider bureaucracy the most rational means of organizing large groups of people.
If that’s the van Vogt I was reminded of, it’s interesting because it has it that rational people will independently agree on what needs to be done in a military situation (iirc, at least in simple early stages of guerrilla warfare), and not need centralized coordination.
I have no idea whether this is even plausible, but I’m not dead certain it’s wrong either.
As stated, it strikes me as unlikely, but something similar seems plausible.
People who have been trained consistently, and can rely on each other to behave in accordance with that training, find it easier to coordinate bottom-up. (Especially, as you say, in guerrilla situations.)
It’s not precisely “we all independently agree” but “we each have a pretty good intuition about what everyone else will do, and can take that prediction into account when deciding what to do.”
64 such people might independently decide that what’s necessary is to surround a target, realize the other 63 will likely conclude the same thing, select a position on the resulting circle unlikely to be over-selected (if all 64 are starting from the same spot, they can each flip a coin three times to pick an octant and then smooth out any clumpiness when they get there; if they are evenly distributed to start with they can pick the spot nearest to them, etc.), and move there.
This is a recurring theme in Dorsai… the soldiers share a very specific and comprehensive training that allows for this kind of coordinated spontaneity. Of course, this is all fictional evidence, but something like this ought to be true in real life. The question is under what circumstances this sort of self-organization does better than centralized strategic planning.
As the OP uses the term, at least, the Dorsai are more rational than their opponents, even though they might not describe themselves that way. We know this, because they consistently make choices that let them win.
Of course, this is all fictional evidence, but something like this ought to be true in real life. The question is under what circumstances this sort of self-organization does better than centralized strategic planning.
Our philosophy of command must also exploit the human ability to communicate implicitly. We believe that implicit communication—to communicate through mutual understanding, using a minimum of key, well-understood phrases or even anticipating each other’s thoughts is a faster, more effective way to communicate than through the use of detailed, explicit instructions. We develop this ability through familiarity and trust, which are based on a shared philosophy and shared experience.
(Believe it or not, I didn’t add any emphases to the above: the italicized phrases are that way in the original!)
Now, the USMC warfighting doctrine is specifically intended for state-vs-state warfare, so one may take it with a grain of salt as to whether it’s suitable for dealing with a barbarian horde or other guerrillas. But, at least it’s some non-fictional evidence. ;-)
Depending on how broadly you look at it, this trope has been done around a thousand different ways in science fiction.
And the other way around, too, don’t forget Arthur Clarke’s “Superiority”. Of course, the losers there weren’t rationalists, just bureaucrats. There are plenty of people though who consider bureaucracy the most rational means of organizing large groups of people.
If that’s the van Vogt I was reminded of, it’s interesting because it has it that rational people will independently agree on what needs to be done in a military situation (iirc, at least in simple early stages of guerrilla warfare), and not need centralized coordination.
I have no idea whether this is even plausible, but I’m not dead certain it’s wrong either.
As stated, it strikes me as unlikely, but something similar seems plausible.
People who have been trained consistently, and can rely on each other to behave in accordance with that training, find it easier to coordinate bottom-up. (Especially, as you say, in guerrilla situations.)
It’s not precisely “we all independently agree” but “we each have a pretty good intuition about what everyone else will do, and can take that prediction into account when deciding what to do.”
64 such people might independently decide that what’s necessary is to surround a target, realize the other 63 will likely conclude the same thing, select a position on the resulting circle unlikely to be over-selected (if all 64 are starting from the same spot, they can each flip a coin three times to pick an octant and then smooth out any clumpiness when they get there; if they are evenly distributed to start with they can pick the spot nearest to them, etc.), and move there.
This is a recurring theme in Dorsai… the soldiers share a very specific and comprehensive training that allows for this kind of coordinated spontaneity. Of course, this is all fictional evidence, but something like this ought to be true in real life. The question is under what circumstances this sort of self-organization does better than centralized strategic planning.
As the OP uses the term, at least, the Dorsai are more rational than their opponents, even though they might not describe themselves that way. We know this, because they consistently make choices that let them win.
From the USMC Warfighting Doctrine manual, pp. 62-63 (PDF pages 64-65):
(Believe it or not, I didn’t add any emphases to the above: the italicized phrases are that way in the original!)
Now, the USMC warfighting doctrine is specifically intended for state-vs-state warfare, so one may take it with a grain of salt as to whether it’s suitable for dealing with a barbarian horde or other guerrillas. But, at least it’s some non-fictional evidence. ;-)