OODA Alpha, Part III: The OODA Loop

The OODA model grew from Air Force Colonel John Boyd’s combat-oriented research into psychological theory (Boyd, 1964, 1976a, 1976b, 1986, 1987a, 1987b, 1996; Fadok, Boyd, & Warren, 1995; Fadok, 1997; Osinga, 2007), and since then has been used in the military literature (Alex, 2000; Bower & Hout, 1988; Dickson, 1992; Gray, 1999; Hammond, 2001; Nagl, 2005; Plehn, 2000; Polks, 2002; Richards, 2003, 2006; Sparling, 2002; Sweeney, 2000) and for military doctrine (Department of National Defence, 1996; U.K. Ministry of Defence, 2002; U.S. Department of the Navy, 1995; U.S. Air Force, 1997; U.S. Army, 2003).

The OODA loop is named for the first letter in its four primary processes: Orient, Observe, Decide, and Act. While the model was initially described as a linear process (U.S. Marine Corps, 1997), such a model was recognized as cognitively naive (Cook, Leedom, Grynovicki, & Golden, 2000; Bryant, 2006). Boyd (1996) provides the following, updated visualization:

“The Essense of Winning and Losing”

The OODA model is informed by cybernetics (Boyd, 1976b; Osinga, 2007) so it is not surprising that like all cybernetic systems (Wiener, 1961; Smith & Smith, 1966), the OODA model includes a stimulus component, observation, and a response module, action. Within a dual processing framework, the Level 1 or implicit system is known as “Orientation,” while the Level 2 or explicit system is known as “Decision.” Orientation is always active and guides action through when decisions are made, action is subject to rational control as well.

OODA Alpha, a tdaxp series
1. Abstract
2. Dual Processing Systems
3. The OODA Loop
4. Decision
5. Orientation
6. A Theory of Mind
7. Reorientation
8. Disorientation
9. Education
10. Instruction
11. Student Interaction
12. Creativity
13. Conclusion
14. Bibliography

More on Dozierinternetlaw and Directbuy

One of the most exhausting, if fulfilling, aspects of covering the Dozier Internet Law imbroglio (you know, the company that got caught red handed sending threatening super-secret cease-and-desists) is the sheer quantity of blog posts that need to be covered.

Brendan of I Hate Linux comes out with two new posts:
In “Dozier Internet Law actions indirectly limiting research?,” he complains how Dozier’s record of negative publicity makes it hard to do his own research on the company.
The day before, he wrote, “A double standard from John Dozier,” apparently finding John “John Kerry” Dozier in a flip-flop.

The Blog of M’Gath takes a break from following dozier to note Consumer Reports‘ views of DirectBuy — the home improvement company that hired Dozier.

Additionally, Fair Use Day picked up the Ars Techncia summary of the case, while I note that Public Citizen Litigation Group lists “DirectBuy and their lawyers at Dozier Internet Law in their “miscellaneous internet free speech cases” section.

Finally, the tdaxp network is busy, as well. Besides a daysworth of headlines at Jim River Report, Dozier Internet Lawsuits is go!