The strategic models, allthough they are applicable at a technical level, they derive from mental schemes, which belong to the cognitive level. Those as by nature deeper, are generally also polymorphic.
But this does not necessarily mean that it is not understandable to a wider public.
Quite often, the general way of thinking is based on simplistic models, which extend over the normal life, which, does not contain extreme elements, meaning, actual and inevitable problems for the specific models.
Consequently, when we all think the same way, that doesn't necessarily mean that this is the best way, but simply it is often the simplest.
So more generally speaking, when a society has developed a model that applies to its periodic data, it is very hard for it to think in a different way.
Allthough it is certainly necessary in order to solve the problem, when that exists.
The lack of strategy often goes hand in hand with the syndrome of conspiracy. Since we can not explain the facts, we interpret them in a way that does not offer any options. But the unexpected is not necessarily unpredictable.
The common idea, that the best wins because, he has developed a better strategy is almost always wrong.
At a high strategic level, the result derives from the selection of an unequaled strategy, while at a low level, it is almost entirely due to a lack of strategy.
When the problem is national and has not been solved for years on, it does not necessarily mean that the strongest is indeed the one who wins with its high strategy, nor that he follows a secret strategy.
In actual fact, in strategy things are awfully simple.
Most do not know it, and others prefer not to state it officially.
The disadvantaged however, have the right to assert the truth and to alter the way of thinking that was imposed upon them.
We all know how hard wood can be, and how ephemeral insects are. With the wood we can exterminate countless insects.
And we all know that its strength derives from its characteristics.
The leaf is solid, and the structure allows its user to turn it into a powerful weapon. While the insects are small and fragile.
The real question though is, how do the insects manage to overcome the limits of their lifespan and to constitute the largest population of the earth? Assuming there is such a reality, could insects be implementations of strong congnitive models?
The evolution of their termites, enriched them with one of the strongest weapons in the world: the endurance to developments.
Termites are one of the rarer insects which can survive in very difficult circumstances. Even if the environment is not friendly to them, they can use it to their advantage. And for termites it is not a weapon but food.
They observe the same subject, in a completely different way, neither better nor inferior, just different.
With this new gaze, the idea regarding the wood is radically different, and so the approaching method must be radical also.
Wood, is a weapon for someone who knows how to use it, but also for someone who doesn't know how to deal with it.
In itself, it doesn't constitute of any particular strategy. Whereas, when the termites destroy it, then, that is the result of a modulation that is interpreted as a strategic mental scheme.
The same data, does not offer the same picture, because we observe only what we can comprehend. And in strategy we invent the images.
The interpretation of an undefeated tactic, doesn't offer any optional strategy. While the change of a gaze, is dynamic by nature.
In this manner, we are able to explain the collapse of the wood. It's crashed down by the invisible weight of the termites.
Consequently, It is not what you are that matters, but what you can do and what you actually do, because it is the task which creates the being. The termites, because they eat wood, they do not fear it!