I was just about to post a reply, where yours came in Flanell J.
Dactoria may be implying that motives and plans of actions leading toward objectives may not always lay on the same plane. When she says that strategic thinking may be, but is not necessarily anti intellectual, she is admitting to at least a possibility, that dishonest people may try to invalidate other’s responses, by a sort of pre-frontal attack.
If the question of honesty comes up, during the course of a conversation, and the person, whose integrity is at question, tries to come up with a defense, such as, 'well, you know, you have never knew me to be dishonest" the other may pre figure this response, and undermine it by saying beforehand, something like," I always thought of you as an honest person"
Now, if that ‘honest’ person would try to counter with ‘Yes, but you haven’t known me that long’, then he would expose himself to attack on another front, like " what does the length of time of knowing someone have to do with one’s person’s ability of covering up lies? ". So the accused finds himself in a linguistic trap, knotted up like Laing, a follower of Wittgensteins language theory would suggest.
It seems , strategic thinking may or may not be useful with an intellectual interpretation of what it takes to find sincerity, since as Smears suggested, stategy can be manipulated by looking at it from various perspectives. As a consequence, the uselessness of such a device tends to be associated with the sense, that primarily it is dishonest people would use it, knowing well, that it seems anchored to more immediate gains rather than it really is: the variences of opinions pursuant of longer terms goals. The former again seems to be predicated on the notion that short term gains of the immediate gratification sort, are less helpful in attaining goals mutually, then seeking them for a singular benefit.
