The article presents an overview of the Observe-Orient-Decide-Act (OODA) model of cognition. The OODA model’s history, use in military strategy, and utility in educational contexts is discussed. Next, special attention is paid to how the OODA model integrates into Boydian cognition, cognitive science, and educational psychology, focusing especially on orientation, or implicit guidance and control over action, and decision, or hypothesis generation.
Two methods of manipulating the orientation of learners, reorientation and disorientation, are then discussed. Following this, an interpretation the OODA model is applied to the realms of (a) education, or improving performance in discrete tasks, (b) student interaction, or proper behavior among peers, and (c) creativity, or life-long success. Finally, the role of the OODA model in developing rationality, which is a vital goal across educational, is briefly considered.
OODA Alpha, a tdaxp series
2. Dual Processing Systems
3. The OODA Loop
6. A Theory of Mind
11. Student Interaction
Aside from my initial post, the blog reactions to DirectBuy and Dozier Internet Law I have posted have all been before Public Citizen and Slashdot got into the debate. (For the background of the story, check out my preliminary case study.)
As time goes on, though, more and more bloggers are picking up the story of the DirectBuy / Dozier Internet Law strategic lawsuit against public participation.
Modemac briefly writes “Direct Buy sends a threatening letter to infomercialblog.com, then threatens the blog author for copyright violation if he dares to publish the letter itself on his site‘” whereas Patry Copyright Blog writes an encyclopedia article on the case.
I Hate Linux has published a follow-up to his first post on the scandal, while Primrose Road has taken notice, as well.
Additionally, a poster over at the 13th Man Direct Buy’s tactics “enlightening.”
Legal Research Blog and The Consumer post their thoughts, too, for good measure.
Jim River Report has headlines reading “Attention: Dozier Internet Law,” “Dozier Internet Law,” and “DirectBuy.”
The best follow-up, however is Curtis’s discovery that John Dozier’s comment on behalf of Dozier Internet Law was partially plagiarized from another web site, in violation of their terms-of-use and copyright! Ha ha ha!
from the unlikely site of Daily Kos. “DHinMI”‘s great article, “What’s behind the Turkish threat to send troops in to Iraq is a must read.
All I can do in response is link to two posts I’ve published. Turkey, a gap country with some European land emphasizes the Gappish nature of the Turkish regime — a point that comes across very eloquently in the dKos article. Likewise, “Russia, Iran, and Distraction” could easily be titled “Turkey, Iran, and Distraction,” considering Turkey’s attempts to placate Tehran.
First DirectBuy hired the thugs at Dozier Internet Law to silence a critique….
And now, dmcgowan Legal Ethics Forum has a very insightful post on copyright threats in cease-and-desist letters (as I mentioned to Curtis). Dozier Internet Law isn’t the first firm to try this stunt, and in spite of Dozier’s horrible track record probably won’t be the last.
After analyzing existing rules on misconduct, DMC suggests a new one:
“In dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel a lawyer shall not . . . . (b) explicitly or implicitly threaten the recipient of any communication from the lawyer with legal action based on the reproduction, performance, or display of that communication.”