>The EBW piece seems like another variation of high-tech net-centric warfare, a la the Israeli-Lebanon War.

Interesting. Can you say more about the use of Entropy in strategy ?

>I have a very, very high view of Belisarius, and its companion site “Defense and the National Interest” [1] Chet Richards, who runs both, is a genius. How do you see me and Chet disagreeing?<

For myself, I use the word “genius” very sparingly, because I reserve it for individuals who create something never thought of before. Having said that, past “geniuses” have borrowed from others.

>Emotion and strategy definitely interact, such as in economic game experiments. [2] I'm not sure what you mean by “pure emotion,” though.<

In this instance, I mean “instinct”. But our concious minds have trouble with this supposition, because logic cannot fathom feeling.

But “instinct” is something I think that goes beyond the use of mere words.

I am a student of both Wittgenstein and Cognitive Psychology at the moment.

Let me put it to you another way. What if I told you, you need to interact with individuals on this site another way beyond text ?

It seems that the best way to increase entropy would be to super-empower the warriors on the scene, and not attempting to do it by reducing your own entropy. It's easier to destroy than to create, which is why EBO's focus on building up one's own information dominance seems so misplaced.

I definitely agree that instincts — be they modular processes or fingertips feelings [1] — definitely effect how strategy is implemented. Strategies which have a room for them do better than those that don't, and EBO (in generally) don't.

“Let me put it to you another way. What if I told you, you need to interact with individuals on this site another way beyond text ?”

I agree completely. This site is way to text-oriented. I think podcasts and vidcasts are both needed.

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/09/13/fingertip-feeling-and-other-implications-of-a-modular-mind.html

> It seems that the best way to increase entropy would be to super-empower the warriors on the scene, and not attempting to do it by reducing your own entropy. It's easier to destroy than to create, which is why EBO's focus on building up one's own information dominance seems so misplaced.

The problem I have with the “Entropy Model” is that I do not know exactly what it is. The scheme provided was not enough. Also, I do agree it is easier to destroy, but the vacuum of destruction is the void where creation fills in. I get the feeling that this model is more about creating a paradigm for both sides to buy into. I will need more facts regarding it, though the use of Entropy in a strategy model is intriguing.

> I definitely agree that instincts — be they modular processes or fingertips feelings [1] — definitely effect how strategy is implemented. Strategies which have a room for them do better than those that don't, and EBO (in generally) don't.

I believe the Germans call it, Fingerspitzengefühl. This is an area that is the core of an individual in arbitrating a decision. Yet, how can one write text about a changing feeling, without having that text have the ability to be able to change itself? This is a bold step to be sure, but something that is untapped and a vastness to be explored. But not by mere static language. Possibly, either through the use of new words, or words with different sounds or colors or something else. To give depth to the instinct feeling to better corroborate with your fellow soldiers and Generals. Instinctual languages as it were. And that would only be one way.

>”Let me put it to you another way. What if I told you, you need to interact with individuals on this site another way beyond text?” I agree completely. This site is way too text-oriented. I think pod casts and video casts are both needed.

The idea I have does not only involve 2-D vid form in “real time”, but would take more on a different way to communicate with each other by both color and sound and pattern, etc. An example would be to incorporate Flash into both friendly-interaction and competition. The reasoning is that the senses are part of our simulation package that we incorporate the universe, along with higher-level language thinking. To stimulate this, would enable aspects that are untouched, but are themselves a vast reservoir of creativity, potential and unsourced understanding. Think about its potential.

An analogy would be, when Ender was learning about the 3-dimensionality of space by actually fighting in it with his own body, before commanding starships.

With Ender, Card was able to show via an extreme example, the balance between the individual and the group in human interaction and organization. But through his example that I will follow later, there will be 2 major underpinning questions.

First, how could one defeat Ender if he was your enemy?

Two, knowing that this was all created (and not in a vacuum) by Card, what analogy is he driving at, even unknowingly?

Today technologys opportunities meld human action.
Human nature may be the same, but is human interaction? Boyd might say that machines do not fight wars, but he is going against his own life experiences which created his strategies. I say this inherent paradox created his need to fill the vacuum and the vacuum itself.
This was why he was able to formulate the OODA loop, which in itself is an “engine” albeit a mental one. His OODA loop was actually about himself.

Dan, do you think you can post up the OODA loop on-site as an active participatory interface?

not usually given to obvious error, i guess this one comes from insufficient familiarity with Iowa. have you visited southeastern Iowa, the country of my youth, with its rolling, green hills? how about northeastern Iowa's Mississippi River bluffs?

normally i am polite enough to let a weblog's author have the last word on a subject, but this may not be one of those times

My knowledge of western Iowa is limited to my recent greyhound trip [1] and a previous Amtrak trip, both to Chicago.

Taylor,

The EBW piece seems like another variation of high-tech net-centric warfare, a la the Israeli-Lebanon War.

I have a very, very high view of Belisarius, and its companion site “Defense and the National Interest” [1] Chet Richards, who runs both, is a genius. How do you see me and Chet disagreeing?

Emotion and strategy definitely interact, such as in economic game experiments. [2] I'm not sure what you mean by “pure emotion,” though.

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/07/13/from-omaha-to-chicago.html
[2] http://d-n-i.net/
[3] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/09/22/altruistic-super-punishment-a-part-of-human-nature-of-at-lea.html

Seriously, I taught community college in north-west Iowa for a year, and loved it. A beautiful small community in a beatiful corner of the state.

just so we're clear on Iowa's beauty…

… but seriously, I loved it. Note how the sky behind the Chinese George Washington was grey? It was almost always like that, and that's not fog. I appreciate small towns and the country.

(Hmmm… I need to get back to that town sometime this year, yet…)

[1] http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=%22flat+as+a

I valued your responses to my questions posed to you before in my previous post, regarding sharing of strategy insights. Your discourse and dialogue are refreshingly erudite.

I do disagree with a couple of your points as applied between humans, more mainly due to the suspicion and caution that all human nature has of each other in general.

Here are a couple of examples. I mentioned to you before about the “Entropy Model”:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:koLnUBxC5k4J:www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1620.pdf+%22entropy+model%22+herman&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=5&lr=lang_en

This is a semi-classified thought process, trademarked and a product. Why does Booz-Allen-Hamilton not completely show what makes it tick, instead of hiding it? Why do they not follow your line of reasoning?

What do you think of this “Model” and what do you think of Booz-Allen-Hamilton?

A second example concerns this company:

http://www.belisarius.com/

Again, why do they not completely follow your line of reasoning?

What do you think of “War, Chaos and Business”?

Now I understand why they do it, as my above questions are likened to the scorpion and frog fable. As scorpions, it is in those 2 companies’ interests to make a buck, have a niche and they are what they are.

But the reason why I am pushing this point, of freely sharing strategy information is something deeper.

For I contend that sharing strategy thinking/reasoning is in fact the strategy, and that one never fully shares the full strategy. With this line of reasoning, there should be some Sun-Tzu, Boyd, Clausewitz or Liddell-Hart line of thought the authors left out.

Also by sharing strategy thinking/reasoning, one tries to shape the thinking/feeling/action of the population in general, which are both the expeditors and objectives of most human organization accomplishments (wealth, power, spirit), in both war and business.

Thoughts/feelings? Also, have you applied your strategy insights to pure emotion?

Taylor