Upside Down and Backwards

The Missteps of Dismissing John Boyd Call for Deeper Understanding

It’s interesting to observe a recurring pattern. I see it so often it is becoming a meme. What pattern am I referring to? The pattern of critics dismissing John Boyd, then recommending the very authors he cited in his work. They never seem to realize they are suggesting authors that Boyd not only read, but referenced. It can be so entertaining becuase it achieves levels of amusement one would not expect in intellectual discourse. The recurring phenomenon raises important questions about the depth of their understanding. It also seems to highlight the narrowness of their intellectual scope.

One of the most common criticisms I hear is what I call "reductionist dismissal." It suggests Boyd is somehow lacking in the breadth or rigor that other thinkers offer. Examples of this might include:

"He was just a fighter pilot.."

"He did not have a PhD."

"His only experience was the military."

"You should look into Bertalanffy, Popper and cybernetics instead of Boyd."

John Boyd Backwards and Upside Down.

What’s often overlooked in these critiques is that Boyd was not some "random military strategist." Rather he was an interdisciplinary thinker who drew from a wide array of sources. These range from thermodynamics to philosophy, from mathematics to psychology, and much more. His reading list was extensive and eclectic. His ability to synthesize insights from diverse fields into a cohesive strategic framework sets him apart. And apparently upsets many others.

So when I hear critics dismiss Boyd and then proceed to recommend authors that Boyd himself cited in his work, it’s hard not to laugh. And then I question whether these critics have even read his work. “Destruction and Creation” is an easy example. It is not another random academic paper. It’s a deep exploration of entropy, uncertainty, and the nature of human creativity. It’s the kind of work that requires more than a quick glance. It demands engagement, reflection, and an understanding of the sources that influenced it.

Not long ago a critic recommended that I should look at three sources instead of Boyd. They were Karl Popper, Michael Polyani and cybernetics. He was unaware that he was reciting Boyd’s own bibliography of "Destruction and Creation." It’s hard not to wonder: had he ever read Boyd? Have they read the authors they so confident to cite? Or are they recycling ideas without making the connections that Boyd in fact did?

Download the original by clicking here.

This lack of connection and awareness is particularly troubling. Boyd was not reading to gather information. He was reading to synthesize. He connected dots across disciplines that others hadn’t even considered. His work is a testament to the power of interdisciplinary thinking. It speaks to the idea that innovation often comes from the spaces between different fields of knowledge. When critics fail to recognize this, they dismiss Boyd and miss out on the true value of his work. They do not acknowledge the depth and breadth of his intellectual journey. And it’s not Boyd they’re dismissing. It’s the very concept of interdisciplinary synthesis that they’re undermining. Or don't understand, or don't think it is even possible.

One can’t help but speculate on the reasons behind this dismissal. Is it a simple case of not doing the work? Is it not digging deep enough into Boyd’s work to understand them? Or is it a matter of critics are so entrenched in their own fields that they can’t appreciate the value of an autodidact like Boyd? Boyd was a non-establishment thinker. He operated outside the traditional academic and corporate structures. Does this present a threat to those who are anchored within them? After all, Boyd’s success didn’t come from adhering to established norms. It came from challenging them. Boyd was willing to go where others wouldn’t. This is the exact type of thinking needed for learning and adapting. This thinking what makes us more creative, collaborative and competitive.

It is clear that this is what scares and threatens certain critics. Boyd embodies a way of thinking that is antithetical to the narrow specialization that dominates academia and corporate life. His approach is about breaking down silos and walls. It's about seeing a bigger picture. It's about understanding that the world is too complex to be understood through and single lens. For those who have spent their careers as experts in one field, this kind of thinking is unsettling. It challenges the very foundation of their intellectual identity.

But here’s the irony. In dismissing Boyd and failing to engage with the full scope of his work, these critics continue to prove his relevance. They show exactly the kind of narrow, siloed thinking that he warned against. They’re showing that they’re not equipped to deal with the VUCA that Boyd understood so well.

You can get more on this by clicking here.

So, to those who would dismiss Boyd and recommend sources from his own bibliography, I offer a suggestion. Before you critique Boyd, make sure you’ve actually read his work, and even listen (or watch) to one of his briefs. Read “Destruction and Creation,” "A Discourse on Winning and Losing," and other Boyd briefs with an open mind. Engage with the authors Boyd cited, not to parrot their ideas, but to understand how Boyd synthesized them into something novel. And, most important, be willing to step outside the comfort zone of your own discipline. Boyd’s work is a reminder that the most profound insights often come from the intersections of different fields. Make the effort to apply different thinking and challenge all assumptions.

In the end, dismissing Boyd without understanding him does more harm to the critic than to Boyd'. It reveals a lack of depth and a failure to appreciate the value of interdisciplinary thinking. It is a a missed opportunity to engage with a brilliant and innovative mind. Don't make the mistake of underestimating Boyd without doing the work. There is so much value in thinking beyond your own intellectual confines. It does not mean that Boyd is beyond criticism. It means that Boyd is beyond criticism of people who have not made the effort to engage and understand his work beyond a surface level.

They end up getting John Boyd backwards and upside down.