“Theoretical Overview of Strategy Theory”? That’s a title I’d think up as a parody. I think the body of the article is beyond what could be achieved with the postmodernism generator, but not by much.
I realize this overview is very abstract, and the extent of that abstraction may necessarily make it a little hard to see a connection to particular details of reality, to see the predictions this framework does and doesn’t make. My goal with this had been to present a high-level coherent model of how everything fits together, which people could internally add to as additional material is presented, and which would also serve as a point of reference when wondering “wait, how does thing X connect to thing Y?”
The title, for sure, could be better. But the body of the article was not in fact achieved with the postmodernism generator, though it may bear similarities to what that generator would produce. There are many superficially similar models, we could shift around the words and concepts and use terms like “value” and “strategic consideration”, but if the model doesn’t actually describe reality, is isn’t going to be helpful.
How would we tell what we’re looking at? Certainly, there are similarities to lots of useless models, that don’t meaningfully descibe what’s going on, that don’t buy the user any bits of prediction. How do we distinguish how useful and accurate the model really is? One way might be looking at what the user of that model is able to do—if he is actually able to achieve better results, there must be some mechanism by which he is doing so. Another way might be looking at how well the ideas seem to predict and explain the things we see around us—unfortunately there haven’t been many specific examples of the ideas presented (the point about deprecation is one such case).
“Theoretical Overview of Strategy Theory”? That’s a title I’d think up as a parody. I think the body of the article is beyond what could be achieved with the postmodernism generator, but not by much.
I’m holding off my review for the forthcoming “Strategic Overview of Theoretical Strategy”.
I realize this overview is very abstract, and the extent of that abstraction may necessarily make it a little hard to see a connection to particular details of reality, to see the predictions this framework does and doesn’t make. My goal with this had been to present a high-level coherent model of how everything fits together, which people could internally add to as additional material is presented, and which would also serve as a point of reference when wondering “wait, how does thing X connect to thing Y?”
The title, for sure, could be better. But the body of the article was not in fact achieved with the postmodernism generator, though it may bear similarities to what that generator would produce. There are many superficially similar models, we could shift around the words and concepts and use terms like “value” and “strategic consideration”, but if the model doesn’t actually describe reality, is isn’t going to be helpful.
How would we tell what we’re looking at? Certainly, there are similarities to lots of useless models, that don’t meaningfully descibe what’s going on, that don’t buy the user any bits of prediction. How do we distinguish how useful and accurate the model really is? One way might be looking at what the user of that model is able to do—if he is actually able to achieve better results, there must be some mechanism by which he is doing so. Another way might be looking at how well the ideas seem to predict and explain the things we see around us—unfortunately there haven’t been many specific examples of the ideas presented (the point about deprecation is one such case).