4:30 control 17:18 business strategy 20:49 underdogs 23:20 how does sima yi overcome the limits of cunning and deception in the ravages of time? Deception and indirectness 28:45 the importance of endurance and the importance of coalitions And the importance of empathy for coalitions. 33:16 often the starting point is defensive rather than offensive 34:31 most "strategy" is WHAT you can do to address the problem you face at the moment. 36:04 get away from an idea of strategy as a plan with a DEFINITE 'end'. C.f. Yukihira Soma Think instead of strategy as a response to a changing environment which is throwing up new problems which requires you to think through WHAT YOU CAN DO to get yourself in a better position , at which point you will be thinking again how to get into an even better position. As you move, new possibilities open up and other possibities close down.(Improving position bit by bit and not thinking any further than achieving a single bit at a time). Btw, what is a problem? How do I know I have a problem? When I feel like I am wanting? So it is very rarely the case, when you embark on a great campaign, that you will end up where you wanted to be. Things happen. questions of chance, serendipity will make a difference
Good show. An Oxford don speaks to a naive, cocooned Silicon Valley audience. He's got lots of knowledge, but offers limited advice. He's old school, from an old country, wearing a navy suit and tie. Google employees who introduce and question Freedman wear t-shirts. They don't appear to have read his book, but remain cocky. Freedman has a message. It's best expressed by his Eisenhower quote. "Plans are worthless, but planning is essential." Strategic plans rarely pan out as expected. People love narratives, and those who succeed cast their success as a series of strategic steps. Most often close examination finds these steps were solutions to immanent problems, not stages of a strategy driven journey. This doesn't sit well with Google's analytic programmers. Check the source code of this page, and there's certainly a link that reports my behavior to them. They package and sell this data to advertisers, claiming it predicts market behavior. Being lectured on the limits of repeated "games," on unpredictable randomness, tells them Google's users may not respond as they're expected. Freedman studies war and business, but his advice is mostly for business people, not warriors. This talk's audience is small, and probably unrepresentative. Otherwise Google has a myopic, one-track company culture.
Well, at least his narrative is fruitful as well as dense in consisting of a lot of interesting and complex ideas. It is the food for thought, not more. And it is A History. Not the.
I've watch tons of google talks to the point that I can recognize half the staff. Espicially the guy that introduces this one, he's forever in attendance.
The importance of coalition in the strategical move. Strategy never stops. The strategy is not a three acts play, the strategy is an unending neverending eternal soap opera.
Another example he discusses at length is how in WWII Churchill decided to lean on the USA,. When Germany declared war on the US how he said "we have won at last" (or something like that). I guess for strategy overall it's an okay example, but it wasn''t exactly cunning: The entry of the US in WWI had already shown what happens when that happens. Overall an okay talk, but I wouldn't call it "groundbreaking". I hate to be the negative guy, with my name out and all, but so sorry, it's my opinion.
Interesting talk. But it is interesting to notice how the entire concept of strategy seems to be based on the notion of win-lose-games. As in games where you have an opponent ( or even "enemy" to use the warlanguage ) and where the purpose is assumed to "beat" this opponent. As he mentioned in warfare in MOST cases the battles are very prolonged and in fact both parties lose. Meaning : The win-lose narrative does not seem to actually work in practice. Because of this it is strange that not more was said about the strategy for win-win games. Here of course you avoid the entire problem of someone trying to frustrate you and prevent your strategy from working. In win-win games there is even an incentive for transparent cooperation and mutual learning which is not possible in a win-lose scenario. Is win-win strategy a neglected and overlooked area in this research?
There certainly have been decisive victories - Dien Bien Phu, Battle of Yorktown, the Battle of Quebec, Waterloo, the battle of Amiens, etc. The issue is these huge battle wins happen late, often or usually ending the war. Given opposing generals knowledge of decisive battles, they're hard to engineer. Only after wars have played out, after attrition and circumstance, can a decisive victory happen.
It would seem a win lose has been simplified to an Xbox game. As always with these matters it depends on your experiences in life. If your family is killled it is an absolute lose - unless survivors are left. If your leaders and aristocracy (ie community leaders are killed) it is a lose - unless survivors are left. If you kill your mate on Fortnight that is a different lose. Then again if we look at geopolitical warfare a lose possibly becomes complicated as we forget about the dead in the grave yards? The thing with war is that the lose is never forgotten and sometime results and inter generational memory and consequences. So an absolute win is difficult to achieve. The history of warfare in Europe and other nations are examples, such is humanity.
Disappointed: He mentions the David&Goliath story as an example, but you just MUST hear what Malcolm Gladwell found out about how that really went - David was NOT the underdog, quite the opposite, it's just that the story tellers of the winner of that battle made it appear such in order to make their win look very glorious ("against all odds") when that wasn't true at all. You find that Gladwell talk right here AtGoogleTalks, by the way.
This is a pretty convoluted talk with a lot of protracted statements which lead to nowhere....because, in the end, I don't know a god damn thing about the point he is trying to make! What is strategy????
had the same issue googled "list of strategies" and "list of tactics" seems like strategy means general plan... some of which are so obvious you question if it had to be penned down
4:30 control
17:18 business strategy
20:49 underdogs
23:20 how does sima yi overcome the limits of cunning and deception in the ravages of time?
Deception and indirectness
28:45 the importance of endurance and the importance of coalitions
And the importance of empathy for coalitions.
33:16 often the starting point is defensive rather than offensive
34:31 most "strategy" is WHAT you can do to address the problem you face at the moment.
36:04 get away from an idea of strategy as a plan with a DEFINITE 'end'. C.f. Yukihira Soma
Think instead of strategy as a response to a changing environment which is throwing up new problems which requires you to think through WHAT YOU CAN DO to get yourself in a better position , at which point you will be thinking again how to get into an even better position. As you move, new possibilities open up and other possibities close down.(Improving position bit by bit and not thinking any further than achieving a single bit at a time).
Btw, what is a problem? How do I know I have a problem? When I feel like I am wanting?
So it is very rarely the case, when you embark on a great campaign, that you will end up where you wanted to be. Things happen. questions of chance, serendipity will make a difference
Can i get a script or handout for each google instructors??
I wonder.
Good show. An Oxford don speaks to a naive, cocooned Silicon Valley audience. He's got lots of knowledge, but offers limited advice. He's old school, from an old country, wearing a navy suit and tie. Google employees who introduce and question Freedman wear t-shirts. They don't appear to have read his book, but remain cocky.
Freedman has a message. It's best expressed by his Eisenhower quote. "Plans are worthless, but planning is essential." Strategic plans rarely pan out as expected. People love narratives, and those who succeed cast their success as a series of strategic steps. Most often close examination finds these steps were solutions to immanent problems, not stages of a strategy driven journey.
This doesn't sit well with Google's analytic programmers. Check the source code of this page, and there's certainly a link that reports my behavior to them. They package and sell this data to advertisers, claiming it predicts market behavior. Being lectured on the limits of repeated "games," on unpredictable randomness, tells them Google's users may not respond as they're expected.
Freedman studies war and business, but his advice is mostly for business people, not warriors. This talk's audience is small, and probably unrepresentative. Otherwise Google has a myopic, one-track company culture.
Well, at least his narrative is fruitful as well as dense in consisting of a lot of interesting and complex ideas. It is the food for thought, not more. And it is A History. Not the.
Lol. I give a good Eisenhower quote: “Beware of the military complex.”
How is the war these 🤡🤡🤡 provoked going for you?
I am a translator of his book. He is my hero.
Dear “blondecat666”, I I’m not surprised, he has the same 666 qualities as you, lol.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@mischa1880 Bravissimo.
I've watch tons of google talks to the point that I can recognize half the staff. Espicially the guy that introduces this one, he's forever in attendance.
The importance of coalition in the strategical move. Strategy never stops. The strategy is not a three acts play, the strategy is an unending neverending eternal soap opera.
There is no strategy. And this guy is nothing but a professional talker.
coalition, endurance, empathy are all emotional attributes and thus stratergy ( logic ) is one half of the story !
Another example he discusses at length is how in WWII Churchill decided to lean on the USA,. When Germany declared war on the US how he said "we have won at last" (or something like that). I guess for strategy overall it's an okay example, but it wasn''t exactly cunning: The entry of the US in WWI had already shown what happens when that happens.
Overall an okay talk, but I wouldn't call it "groundbreaking". I hate to be the negative guy, with my name out and all, but so sorry, it's my opinion.
Why don't people ever think these talks may be worth setting up decent audio ?
Interesting talk. But it is interesting to notice how the entire concept of strategy seems to be based on the notion of win-lose-games. As in games where you have an opponent ( or even "enemy" to use the warlanguage ) and where the purpose is assumed to "beat" this opponent. As he mentioned in warfare in MOST cases the battles are very prolonged and in fact both parties lose. Meaning : The win-lose narrative does not seem to actually work in practice. Because of this it is strange that not more was said about the strategy for win-win games. Here of course you avoid the entire problem of someone trying to frustrate you and prevent your strategy from working. In win-win games there is even an incentive for transparent cooperation and mutual learning which is not possible in a win-lose scenario. Is win-win strategy a neglected and overlooked area in this research?
HE actually notes this in the book.
There certainly have been decisive victories - Dien Bien Phu, Battle of Yorktown, the Battle of Quebec, Waterloo, the battle of Amiens, etc. The issue is these huge battle wins happen late, often or usually ending the war. Given opposing generals knowledge of decisive battles, they're hard to engineer. Only after wars have played out, after attrition and circumstance, can a decisive victory happen.
Please use slides
It would seem a win lose has been simplified to an Xbox game. As always with these matters it depends on your experiences in life. If your family is killled it is an absolute lose - unless survivors are left. If your leaders and aristocracy (ie community leaders are killed) it is a lose - unless survivors are left. If you kill your mate on Fortnight that is a different lose. Then again if we look at geopolitical warfare a lose possibly becomes complicated as we forget about the dead in the grave yards? The thing with war is that the lose is never forgotten and sometime results and inter generational memory and consequences. So an absolute win is difficult to achieve. The history of warfare in Europe and other nations are examples, such is humanity.
Disappointed: He mentions the David&Goliath story as an example, but you just MUST hear what Malcolm Gladwell found out about how that really went - David was NOT the underdog, quite the opposite, it's just that the story tellers of the winner of that battle made it appear such in order to make their win look very glorious ("against all odds") when that wasn't true at all. You find that Gladwell talk right here AtGoogleTalks, by the way.
Its a pain listening to all the donnish aah... aam ... aam. Had to give up ...
book was very wordy, read it slow
This is a pretty convoluted talk with a lot of protracted statements which lead to nowhere....because, in the end, I don't know a god damn thing about the point he is trying to make! What is strategy????
had the same issue
googled "list of strategies" and "list of tactics"
seems like strategy means general plan... some of which are so obvious you question if it had to be penned down
😂 wow....just wow. Not surprised either of you needed to be spoon fed critical thought😂
@@-VOR haha, so easy to just put a label and claim victory. But why? Where is your critical thinking
he needs to use AI voice so we dont sleep
i recommend britney spears voice
Dear Ukraine, look where these people got you. You are fighting THEIR war against Russia.
“They” will fight until the last Ukrainian.