Just checking. Do people at the tactical level learn about things like that? From wikipedia (yeah, I know ): The basic idea is that people overwhelmingly prefer taking on risk in situations where they know specific odds rather than an alternative risk scenario in which the odds are completely ambiguous—they will always choose a known probability of winning over an unknown probability of winning even if the known probability is low and the unknown probability could be a guarantee of winning. That is, given a choice of risks to take (such as bets), people "prefer the devil they know" rather than assuming a risk where odds are difficult or impossible to calculate.
Oh yes, I've just never seen philosophic theories taught in general. Most of the military-thought training I've seen is based around analysis of battles, and battlefield studies.
Know thyself and all that... I feel when I understand my own reactions, I won't be prone to falling into traps of my own mind. And on the strategic/tactical leadership level it's even more important to be aware of them. Or that's what I think
I vaguely recall it from POC training ... although most us used the 'phillosphy of war' , module to catch up on our sleep. The men might be aware of the idea on an unconscious level but the average squaddie isn't academic (I'm not saying they aren't intelligent) and would switch off as soon as anyone started talking about paradoxes For the average squaddie there's no such thing as 'odds of winning' - if the special forces motto is "Who dares wins" the green army motto is "who cares who wins" That is active duty is about taking care of your mates, doing what you are told, and making it to the end of your tour in one piece
nope Who cares who wins ... we don't care who wins this war so long as we survive. I'm not sure who cares to win even makes sense in a grammatical sense - that would be who wants to win
