For most people, it's not a question of if* they know what they're doing, but if you can stay solvent (pace "in the long run") long enough for the tide to go out.
(I don't know about you, but if I ever attempted to attack THB, my net worth would a.a. meet an absorbing barrier at 0)
* if I were a central bank, and someone asked me if I knew what I was doing, I would be tempted to reply "we do not have a single theory, but rather a cluster of models and results".
For we need a workable modern definition of lion & fox (the 2 forms of human capital) to cover all the cases. we agree that designori are humans who can switch modes or engage both simultaneously?
[Pants were intended to be a gadget to help foxes adopt a (intellectual) lion mode, or vice versa]
Lion: embraces externalities/expediencies, values unpredictability & loyalty
Fox: rationalizes away externalities, seeks truth, values legibility, respects prowess
[another possible triad is {lion,fox,externality}, so that wolves & traps can be shoved under that last bit]
[you observe that i tried to combine Jacobs & Rao explicitly, Boyd & Nietzsche implicitly]
Concerning historical rhymes, nakamoto “chef marinetti” sakamoto prescribes decentralization, while sam “nielsbohr” altman prescribes AI?
In order to increase genus from camiknickers, should we try the XVI: https://blog.bridgemanimages.com/blog/cutting-edge-fashion-t... , the century of k-clothing?
Agreed on designori[0], but as they stand the animals are slightly problematic, for, as proposed, the sly fox seeks truth, and the brave lion camouflages its actions instead of roaring magnificently.
(prowess is all over the medi lit for bellatores; I think it's a more recent development that we may speak of le preux Souabe. Did Aramis play the designori?)
How about:
Leopard:
embraces externalities
loyal to (direct) superiors
values camouflage
respects (brute) strength
Crow:
rationalises externalities
loyal to truth (an abstraction)
values legibility
respects (book) smarts
[I should check the Panchatantra bestiary to see if they have any suitable animals. Adult literature recognises the two strategies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthashastra#On_spying,_propag... ]
[0] could their strategies be regular? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_design#Regular_uniform_d...
[1] is this because lionesses stalk, but lions let them do the hunting? compare "ne parizh"
In the hacker world, there is a refinement of Amdahl's Law which points out that although one may be willing to add complexity to a system at its bottlenecks, one should ruthlessly aim for simplicity everywhere else (this is easy to say, but difficult to do, because successful attempts move the bottlenecks).
I like to think of this as a computation being like a mountain stream, where changing the topography only matters at waterfalls; inside of pools it'd just be wasted effort. (to first order; at higher orders I'd hold that adding complexity inside of pools is actively detrimental, while removing it there may [beware of parenthetical above] be helpful)
In the econometrics world, Shapley–Shubik clarifies* the circumstances under which relative power differences between members of a coalition become moot: either they hang together or they hang separately.
* in particular, a functional triad is worth 417/2145.
ERRATUM: also, please correct "amazing spin on it", supra, to "amazing spin on X (né twitter)"
EDIT: even the appearance of a functional triad; for those more utilitarian than Pareto optimal that 417/2145 would be worth hecatombs of glowing boomers. Today I don't enjoy the "P! Who put valenki on management panel?" anecdote so much.