82,853
edits
OODA loop: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
It is therefore by surprising our opponent that we are most likely to win. Surprise in finite play is the triumph of the past over the future. | It is therefore by surprising our opponent that we are most likely to win. Surprise in finite play is the triumph of the past over the future. | ||
:—{{author|James P. Carse}}<ref>{{Br|Finite and Infinite Games}}.</ref>}} | :—{{author|James P. Carse}}<ref>{{Br|Finite and Infinite Games}}.</ref>}} | ||
When you are in direct, bilateral conflict — you know, while dog-fighting, playing [[chess]] or [[cricket]], or campaiging for an [[Brexit|in/out referendum on membership of the European Union]] — your “OODA loop” is your [[Decision-making|decision]] cycle: “'''o'''bserve, '''o'''rient, '''d'''ecide, '''a'''ct”. | |||
The OODA loop was invented by contrarian US Air Force Colonel John Boyd. it came to him, so the story goes, while dog-fighting. Boyd’s famous manoeuvre was to surprise a pursuer by abruptly flying straight up, stalling his plane, forcing his opponent to fly straight past him from which point he could drop back down behind the attacker and give it the full nine yards.<ref>Speaking of dogfighting, those public-spirited kill-joys at Wikipedia tell us [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_whole_nine_yards the legend that “the whole nine yards” originated from the total length of a Spitfire’s machine gun belt] (hence, “to shoot everything you have at once”) is an urban myth. The phrase dates back to the late 19th century, before there were any Spitfires. Boo.</ref> | |||
You must take in what is happening (''observe''), synthesise a theory of what’s going on and what your opponent is up to (''orient''),<ref>“Orient” doesn’t seem as good a word to me as “synthesise”, especially as that would have made the acronym “OSDA”, which all [[ninja]]s will find pleasing.</ref> figure out what to do about it (''decide'') and then do it (''act'') — ideally, ''before'' your opponent gets through ''her'' decision cycle, works out what ''you’re'' doing and changes up what she is planning to do to ''you''. | Boyd analysed what he was doing and realised the decision cycle has four steps: You must take in what is happening (''observe''), synthesise a theory of what’s going on and what your opponent is up to (''orient''),<ref>“Orient” doesn’t seem as good a word to me as “synthesise”, especially as that would have made the acronym “OSDA”, which all [[ninja]]s will find pleasing.</ref> figure out what to do about it (''decide'') and then do it (''act'') — ideally, ''before'' your opponent gets through ''her'' decision cycle, works out what ''you’re'' doing and changes up what she is planning to do to ''you''. | ||
A duel may be a zero-sum game but it is still a [[wicked environment]]. You ''can’t'' just execute on your plan ignoring how your opponent reacts. By getting “inside” an opponent’s OODA loop you seize the initiative, you have the element of surprise and can force your opponent to cycle through a series of ineffectual reactions. If you are good, she won’t be able to get out of it. Hence the OODA loop. Keep the other guy off kilter. | A duel may be a zero-sum game but it is still a [[wicked environment]]. You ''can’t'' just execute on your plan ignoring how your opponent reacts. By getting “inside” an opponent’s OODA loop you seize the initiative, you have the element of surprise and can force your opponent to cycle through a series of ineffectual reactions. If you are good, she won’t be able to get out of it. Hence the OODA loop. Keep the other guy off kilter. | ||