One of Gladwell’s main contentions is that after people attain a certain level of expertise, their unencumbered intuitions alone can do a surprisingly good job in their given field of expertise. Gladwell’s examples include Pentagon strategists,...

I just hurt myself.

If this is an important component of Arnott's arguments he must be dumber than a chicken.

In Blink, Gladwell describes how the Pentagon brought in a retired officer to act as a "rogue commander in the Middle East" for a war game called the Millenium Challenge. Read the Guardian article to see what happened. You'll have to read Gladwell for his interpretation. The man was, at the time, a "Pentagon strategist", and I didn't think it unreasonable to leave the phrase as it is. Besides that, calling me dumber than a chicken is kind of outta line, especially since you clearly responded before reading the piece. If you'd read it first, then I'd expect a couple reasons from you on why I'm dumber than a chicken:)

Also, not to endorse any side of the US's current situation in Iraq, but as I recall reading, there were plenty of divergent viewpoints among Pentagon strategists in the leadup to the invasion and subsequent occupation; the people who didn't support what was ultimately enacted were ignored. If you don't like what one person or a few people in an organization do, it doesn't mean ALL of them are terrible at their jobs.

I encourage you to read the piece and play the baseball-related game I laid out.

You make some interesting points, David. Since you don't specifically claim (and nor does that claim, as I wrote, seem an "important component" of your argument) that the unencumbered intuitions of Pentagon strategists allows them to make surprisingly good decisions, clearly you are NOT dumber than a chicken--please note I included a healthy "if" right at the start :). I was in fact already painfully aware of Van Riper's performance in the simulation, and the concealment of it. I don't quite buy that van Riper, having retired, can accurately be called a "Pentagon strategist," and your use of the plural, "Pentagon strategists," seems a further inaccuracy which in context may imply that Pentagon strategists, as a group, are both experts and are doing "surprisingly good job[s]..." I just can't agree with that. My recollection of that time was that there was far less divergence of opinion than you recall--we may have to disagree. In either case there were no resignations on principle. Dismaying, given what was obviously at stake.

If you don't like what one person or a few people in an organization do, it doesn't mean ALL of them are terrible at their jobs.

That's certainly true.

Terrific article, btw.