As we look at curriculum as part of our annual review, we have to consider how do we accomodate as much flexibility as possible for students and instriuctors (with their variety of interests, expereinces, and needs) and the institutional requirement to have field grade officers competent at some level with managing the existing system.
What’s the trade off between educating on “systems as designed /operating” and “system as could/should be?” How much autonomy are we really giving students to design the educational experience they need? We trust our officers with the security of the nation and the lives of our children, so why don’t they have more voice in their education? This line of reasoning leads you to more electivess and more offerings, and let the market decide what is working.
Dr Chris Paparone’s thoughts in these areas are essential considerations for us as we design curriculum. He in particular challenges us to question our reliance on science and scientism, systems engineering and quantitative approaches, and to engage critically with our own biases and metaphors in the construction of knowledge. These are non-trivial issues. I encourage you to reflect on his writings in Military Review and Army Logistician as well as his initial commentary in this blog.
One size fits all education isn’t education at all, but indoctrination. And how do we break the industrual age model which has identical “correct” curriculum being taught identically in identical rooms of homogenous staff groups? Ho do we get people up and out of their boxes to engage in dialoguie between staff groups and with the faculy at large, in settings that challenge our comfort zones?
There is a Moment in every closely contested MMA or judo match when both guys think they are losing and are almost lost. They have taken themselves right to the edge, and they can see what the other guy can do to win.
It is not unusual for that moment to happen simultaneously in close matches. The win often (but not always) goes to the guy that finds a way to keep going in that moment of maximum uncertainty, to the guy who is fully committed to the moment. That full committment is necessary but not sufficient; it is not a guarantee of the outcome.
All games worth playing have that element of dynamic uncertainty right up until the decision. It’s why we play good games, because that reality captures our sense of life itself. We don’t know how it will turn out in the close ones,in the ones that matter, the ones that pull us in to the Moment. That’s the moment you MUST make that full committment and then let Life have its way. Trust in the outcome and Life will be Just.
Your rewards come from the act of committment not from the specific outcome. Life asks: can you find a game (any activity, purpose, project, goal, value) to which you will committ your everything? and in the moment of decision can you go all in? If you are engaged in games other than that, ask why? and then ask when? and why not start now?
My under 10 girl’s soccer team is going to talk about this today before we go try to put a whuppin’ on Blue valley Soccer Club, a most excellent team to play against. They are strong, fast and skilled, and are committed to playing at their highest level. We aim to be a team worthy of playing them. We honor ourselves, our opponents and the game when we do that.
Keep going! and see what happens!
this picture and concept map reflects our emerging trading technique for chaotic markets, affectionately called, Ready-Fire-Aim which takes measured action within a framework of understanding, with finetuning for position sizing once we are in the trade and it begins to unfold
There is ample evidence to support both long and short side here. Follow the logic to see why i am very willing here to be long intraday, but am prepared to quickly reverse and go short on evidence of resumption of weakness. I believe this kind of market outlook will allow you to trade with the market on EVIDENCE OF PRICE ACTION IN THE “NOW ”