|
p.187 I have so far avoided a direct answer to my earlier question: ‘How
stupid are we?’ The answer, based on the evidence I have seen, is that we are rather stupid. I can imagine
you asking, ‘Who are the stupid people?’ Well, if you want to know who the stupid people are you need
only look in a mirror. [JLJ - Lieutenant Colonel Richard King says you are stupid and gets his article published.
Right. This is sounding real intelligent. ]
p.189 If the only tool you have is a hammer, and you choose not
to use it, then either you recognise the need for additional tools or you are stupid. –
Richard King
p.190 I have a suggestion. If Defence would like to improve its chances
of saving 20 billion dollars over the next ten years, it could start by making less stupid decisions, such as sealing the
windows in a non-airconditioned building. [JLJ - King is using his favorite word again.]
p.191 Calling the Army adaptive does not make it adaptive.
[JLJ - calling your readers stupid does not make them stupid.] A change in title—even accompanied by a change in organisational
structure—does not change habit, culture or tradition. Furthermore, explaining how we are going to become an
Adaptive Army in documents that are poorly written—from a critical thinking perspective—may be counterproductive.
p.193 Conclusion
So, is the Army stupid? I believe it is. That does
not mean, however, that everybody in the Army is stupid, or that everything the Army does is stupid. My assessment is
that we are stupid as individuals because we do not understand ‘thinking’... Organisationally we need
to put more effort into thinking. [JLJ - There you have it. A Lieutenant Colonel in the Australian Army calls the Army stupid
in a published article. ]
p.194 Ultimately, it will be very hard to become
less stupid if we do not recognise the value of critical and creative thinking skills and facilitation skills, and
establish a robust system to develop, recognise and reward those skills. Those of you uncomfortable with the thought
that we might be stupid can console yourselves with the fact that, as you read this, critical thinking skills are neither
a desirable nor a mandatory requirement. [JLJ - So, face it, we are just plain incredibly, unbelievably stupid. How
stupid of me not to have realized this before now.]
JLJ - With respect, King should have presented arguments as to how the adaptive army initiative
itself, regardless as to how well a certain document was written, was useful or not.
If the initiative itself is useful, than perhaps what is needed is a technical writer rather than
a 6th-grade level rant on intelligence. Otherwise, King should call for more study or a reversal of the initiative. Where
was King (and his arguments) when the initiative was originally debated and approved? Perhaps the initial debate should
be re-opened and the original arguments (both for and against ) restated. All of these are intelligent, reasonable suggestions
that follow from King's observations.
I would refer Mr. King to the following article:
The Reflective Military Practioner: How Military Professionals Think in Action: Paparone, Reed,
2010
In: Military Review, March-April 2008
p.71 Successful collaboration in a professional network
across the stages of knowledge requires participants to appreciate existing opinions and arguments while striving
to understand and appreciate new ones. This can be a challenge when those proposing the new approach have not yet
developed sufficient language to fully describe what they are intuiting... Professionals should freely admit that
they are unable to judge what they have not yet learned. Socratic wisdom rests on the admission that one does not know when
and how the opportunity for learning will arise.
|
