Wes Daugherty
In seminar, a student delivered a masterful written analysis of a regional conflict. The logic was tight. The prose was polished. It was the kind of work that earns an easy “A.” When he attempted to apply that same academic logic in a subsequent wargame, however, the limits of his written work became clear. The living, breathing adversary—another student—did not behave like a paragraph on a page. Instead, the adversary adapted, exploited vulnerabilities, and introduced friction that the student had not anticipated while writing. Within minutes, the clean structure that worked so well on paper buckled under the weight of a thinking opponent operating under a different set of assumptions.
After the turn ended, the student admitted quietly, “I thought I understood this problem when I wrote it. I didn’t.” There was no embarrassment, only clarity. The paper had rewarded explanation. The wargame demanded execution: decisions with consequences against an adversary that pushed back.
No comments:
Post a Comment