The author’s article conflicts with the views he held 25 years ago. Back then he wrote that the U.S. Army interpreted the OODA loop too narrowly. Now, he is guilty of the same thing. This is another great piece exposing the elements of the 5T framework.
I hear you and would add that even that original piece contradicts itself.
In the Boyd archives at the MCU there’s a whole box of his work and battle with the institutional Army. In an extreme nutshell summary, they chose “synchronize” over “harmonize.” Reading that original work is a few years after that and seems very similar, as if the “Boyd Problem” (my term) had not settled.
Boyd's syncronization, in my opinion, was a means to an end. That end being, to harmonize.... then weaponize. Which is how I try to approach similar problem sets.
Boyd is nearly always "misunderstood". Which is why the "go-faster, stupid loop" has become the standard.
Boyd contributed to the lack of understanding a bit, by having a different answer (depending on when he was asked) about what was the critical element of the OODA process. Sometimes it was orientation, other times it was decision --> action.
Further... Truly understanding requires recognition that the loop is predicated on some assumptions. Like, the loop operator's underlying disciplinary competence.... which far too many people are simply lacking as a baseline.
All that said, I didn't agree with Polk's assessment in '99 when he wrote it. I agree that he's now trying to argue the other direction. And... he's wrong on both counts, en toto. But, he did frame the "Trump problem" fairly well, and contrasted it well against the Asian process, which is appropriate for the simple fact that Genghis John, as a thinker, was much more "asian" than most recognize.
Another fantastic piece. I have not read anyone who takes Boyds work even deeper and makes me rethink a lot of my own thoughts on his work. Fantastic!
As you know the learning with Boyd never stops!
It never does stop.
The author’s article conflicts with the views he held 25 years ago. Back then he wrote that the U.S. Army interpreted the OODA loop too narrowly. Now, he is guilty of the same thing. This is another great piece exposing the elements of the 5T framework.
I hear you and would add that even that original piece contradicts itself.
In the Boyd archives at the MCU there’s a whole box of his work and battle with the institutional Army. In an extreme nutshell summary, they chose “synchronize” over “harmonize.” Reading that original work is a few years after that and seems very similar, as if the “Boyd Problem” (my term) had not settled.
"Syncronize over Harmonize"....
Yeah... that was/is problematic.
Boyd's syncronization, in my opinion, was a means to an end. That end being, to harmonize.... then weaponize. Which is how I try to approach similar problem sets.
Good one. In the MSM it's been pretty much Projection City.
Boyd is nearly always "misunderstood". Which is why the "go-faster, stupid loop" has become the standard.
Boyd contributed to the lack of understanding a bit, by having a different answer (depending on when he was asked) about what was the critical element of the OODA process. Sometimes it was orientation, other times it was decision --> action.
Further... Truly understanding requires recognition that the loop is predicated on some assumptions. Like, the loop operator's underlying disciplinary competence.... which far too many people are simply lacking as a baseline.
All that said, I didn't agree with Polk's assessment in '99 when he wrote it. I agree that he's now trying to argue the other direction. And... he's wrong on both counts, en toto. But, he did frame the "Trump problem" fairly well, and contrasted it well against the Asian process, which is appropriate for the simple fact that Genghis John, as a thinker, was much more "asian" than most recognize.