Not Gibberish

Several blogfriends have thumped me for terming Robb’s theory “gibberish.” They are right.

I criticized John Robb that way because of its internal validity (any part of John’s writing can be used to help inform any other part) and external invalidity (the theory does not seem to predict actual behavior or describe what is really going on). Such a combination is not typical of a crazy man. It is typical of a good theorist who happens to be wrong.

As I commented on Shloky, I am not criticizing Global Guerrllas Theory with vitriol — only enthusiastic skepticism.

In that context, I am happy that John Robb has taken the time to comment on the original thread. Some excerpts:

The reality is that we are getting beaten in Iraq and Afghanistan (and there are signs that it won’t stop there as in Nigeria). The model I provide answers many of the questions as to why this is so and as a result it is being sought after by those that are in decision making positions to make a difference, which I am more than happy to provide…

In terms of approach, I do take a “red team” approach to how I write, but I think that is the most effective way to get across the message. My thinking is that unless the threat and the environment is accurately defined, you can’t build effective solutions. So far, the solutions I am finding appear to bottoms up in a way that parallels the threat, which seem incompatible with what the existing bureaucracies can accept. We’ll see who is right.

So I thank John for his comment, and for his time. I apologize for the too-hot rhetoric and the departure from my “otherwise scholarly style.” The discussion continues (now at 56 comments!), and hopefully a good time is being had by all.