Realistic Training Part One: The OODA Loop

William Hazen wrote: Good point Eric...Let me answer this with a question If according to my Zen Roshi I am already enlightened... Then why should I do zazen???

Why kill the Buddha if he is already dead?

William Hazen wrote: I think the OODA loop is a way to understand 'rationally' the application of the principles you've mentioned....

OODA is about a reducing quantitative loop time between acting and then deciding on the next action. There is a qualitative difference between that and not deciding, or more accurately, shifting the burden of deciding the next step in the interaction to the other guy, freeing me merely to act accordingly. Two different kinds of training effort, in my book. Both valuable in the right perspective.

Erick Mead wrote: My point is that OODA is a rationalist paradigm with a definite conscious decision step. I perceive aikido, when it is functioning properly, decides nothing consciously or rationally -- being properly oriented to begin with, internally and externally, aware of surroundings and entering into continual connection with them, no decision is necessary.

Hi Erick, I think the above explains your point quite well and put the way you have above I agree totally with your assessment. The concept of conscious or unconscious decision is quite important here when comparing the OODA concept to what we want to achieve in Aikido.

Interesting stuff to ponder.

Domo.

William Hazen wrote: Good point Eric...Let me answer this with a question If according to my Zen Roshi I am already enlightened... Then why should I do zazen??? I think the OODA loop is a way to understand 'rationally' the application of the principles you've mentioned.... William Hazen

Because you have not realized that you are already enlightened that is why we do zazen

I find it interesting that Boyd went though all this work distilling centuries of strategy, tactics, science, theory, philosophy and experience as recorded in our history, constantly refined his synthesis (as well as the OODA model) in his briefings and here already some want to drop parts out so they can improve the model.

To quote Oshinga:

John Boyd is dead but he has left a sophisticated, multi-layered and multidimensional legacy and a new set of terms and concepts to study conflict that is useful... Boyd's ideas involve much more than the idea of 'rapid OODA looping' or a theory of maneuver warfare... These concepts are firmly based on a thorough study of military history and informed by insights on learning and the behavior of social systems derived from various disciplines... Whereas rapid OODA looping is often equated with superior speed in decision making, Boyd employs the OODA loop model to show how organisms evolve and adapt. It has become evident that... Boyd's work is infused with the larger theme of equal or even surpassing importance of multidimensional organizational adaptation in a dynamic non-linear environment... Boyd regards the OODA loop schematic in general as a model for organizational learning, or even more general, the way organisms adapt and thus evolve.

Besides, I fail to see how one could act without a decision of some kind -- even barfing technique out of the void is a decision.

It might help people to at least take a look at the full model:
http://www.belisarius.com/modern_bus...oop_sketch.htm
and note that orientation is a loop with in the loop with many factors influencing and interplaying within it. Note also all of the other feedback loops along with the OODA loop that feeds forwards. And note that "D" and "A" are tied together with hypothesis and test. As the loop keeps looping actions and their results keep feeding back into the system as validity checks on the functionality of the orientation patterns hence learning, growth and evolution.

While your at it, look at the entire presentation "The Essence of Winning and Losing".
http://www.belisarius.com/modern_bus...l_frameset.htm
It is only 5 power point slides. The hard part is you don't get Boyd's commentary on the slides.

Doug Walker wrote: I find it interesting that Boyd went though all this work distilling centuries of strategy, tactics, science, theory, philosophy and experience as recorded in our history, constantly refined his synthesis (as well as the OODA model) in his briefings and here already some want to drop parts out so they can improve the model. ... note that orientation is a loop with in the loop with many factors influencing and interplaying within it. Note also all of the other feedback loops along with the OODA loop that feeds forwards. And note that "D" and "A" are tied together with hypothesis and test. As the loop keeps looping actions and their results keep feeding back into the system as validity checks on the functionality of the orientation patterns hence learning, growth and evolution.

You only help prove my point. The model depicts a multiply parallel, recursive process, inherently non-linear, and therefore not parsible in linear logic with a defined "gradient" of flow. A non-linear process does not necessarily follow a given defined path among the possible alternatives. A non-linear system can undergo "retrograde" progression, and can "skip" steps that seem necessary if viewed linearly.

The diagram considered as a whole acknowledges the centrality of Orientation to the operation of the whole system. Observations are only useful if you are already oriented to comprehend their meaning. Actions are only effective if you are already oriented as to their probable consequence.

If you will, note that Boyd's diagram includes two arrows at the top leading from Orientation to both Observation and Action, with the label "Implicit guidance and control." In this, as I suggested, Orientation is the critical element driving BOTH Observation AND Action -- without necessitating any mediating Decision -- but only in implicit terms, i.e. -- not conscious nor rational (in the sense of reasoned logic).

In other words, it is entirely consistent with the OODA system's concept (whether Boyd ever got around to applying it explicitly this way or not), for the system to function not only in the OODA progression, but in other progressions as well, and especially via the Orient/Observe/Act progression I identified for Aikido, without doing violence to either Boyd's observations or his purpose in developing the concept.

Erick Mead Wrote:

Observations are only useful if you are already oriented to comprehend their meaning.

I agree...this is the crux of the issue when you are discussing this in terms of budo.

Eric, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I follow what you are saying, but I don't agree that what you are taking as orientation is the same as Boyd. I think, if hard pressed, that what you are describing is just a part of observation (seeking connection et al).

I also find your insistence that there is no decision in aikido problematic. You say "one has already commited to decide one thing -- always enter/turn into a connection" and I feel that Boyd would say that an opponent cycling in their own loop could and eventually would arrive at a solution to that set strategy, if only because they were creating/evolving vs. your one strategy.

I would also say that "one goes where things wish to go of themselves" is merely a gloss of decision.

Anyway, if it works for you...

Maybe Erick mean 'no conscious decision', not understanding the decision can be taken by your brain without you consciously realising it. It's still in the loop.

Doug Walker wrote: I find it interesting that Boyd went though all this work distilling centuries of strategy, tactics, science, theory, philosophy and experience as recorded in our history, constantly refined his synthesis (as well as the OODA model) in his briefings and here already some want to drop parts out so they can improve the model.

Sounds like what happened to O'Sensei and his Aikido.

David

Michael Douglas wrote: Maybe Erick mean 'no conscious decision', not understanding the decision can be taken by your brain without you consciously realising it. It's still in the loop.

Boyd's own diagram has the top level routine "implicit control and guidance" running respectively from Orientation to observation and from Orientation to Action. Following that routine a single cycle can run on Boyd's diagram thus:

Orientaiton-Observation-Orientation-Action

"Decision" is skipped entirely.

I suggest that effecting an Action may not involve even subconscious decision about the intended course of action -- it may simply arise as an emergent property of proper Orientation, like supersaturated solution crystallizes suddenly in a very small additional input. If so, then no conscious or unconscious decision is necessary.

Many complicated things occur of their own devices without the necessity of conscious or even subconscious decision making on our part. You sweat when you need to. You sleep when you need to, sometimes whether you decide to do it or not. You maintain quiet balance on two legs without any conscious (or subconscious) decisions (balance is far deeper than that).

Is it that hard to believe that Aikido taps into something profound enough in the human constitution to not need our cerebral mediation for it to be effective? O Sensei seemed to believe it, ascribing things of this nature to the action of the divine. One need not posit a kami or angel on one's shoulder to acknowledge that complex things occur in your own body that do not need your permission, express or implied, to their work.

Funny that this thread is titled "realistic training".

Chris Hein wrote: Funny that this thread is titled "realistic training".

Why? Do you have anything to add to the discussion or are you just interested in sharpshooting from the peanut gallery out there in Fresno? Do you have Military Experiance? Combat Training? Know anything about the OODA Loop and it's applications under Duress or as a Strategic Management Tool? Do you know enough about your own practice to break down and explain this feedback loop and how it's taught and applied to your practice?

I hope it's the latter since I have enjoyed reading some your stuff in the past ,and I would much rather keep this thread on track.

William Hazen

Erick Mead wrote: ...I suggest that effecting an Action may not involve even subconscious decision about the intended course of action -- it may simply arise as an emergent property of proper Orientation,... Is it that hard to believe that Aikido taps into something profound enough in the human constitution to not need our cerebral mediation for it to be effective? ....

I see your point, but I do not believe actual techniques can be applied to an attacker without conscious or subconscious decisionmaking. We therefore cannot agree on this subject.

However, the idea of emergent property of proper orientation might be applicable to human movements as a result of impact and momentum, but not actions which occur before physical contact.

William Hazen wrote: Why? Do you have anything to add to the discussion or are you just interested in sharpshooting from the peanut gallery out there in Fresno? Do you have Military Experiance? Combat Training? Know anything about the OODA Loop and it's applications under Duress or as a Strategic Management Tool? Do you know enough about your own practice to break down and explain this feedback loop and how it's taught and applied to your practice? I hope it's the latter since I have enjoyed reading some your stuff in the past ,and I would much rather keep this thread on track. William Hazen

You're talking about a theory, not realistic training. An intellectual theory is different then "realistic training".

Chris Hein wrote: You're talking about a theory, not realistic training. An intellectual theory is different then "realistic training".

Really...A "Theory" employed by every branch of our Armed Services... Responsible for saving thousands of lives...A "Theory" which almost every Fortune 500 Company first teaches to it's junior managers...

There are thousand of pages of emperical data and hard facts to back up the OODA Loop "Theory" application in Combat...

With all due respect Chris I think your "semantic" arguement does not do you justice. More than likely your training includes the OODA process and perhaps if you thought about it carefully for a second You will come to understand it better

Start with this....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA

So far there has been no suggestions in this thread regarding the OODA loop is only a "intellectual theory" and not applicable to Budo...Almost the entire thread has been devoted to the application of the OODA Loop to practice.

I think I recall you describing OODA in some of your own videos showing your "realistic" training though I guess at this point you may not have been aware of what you were describing???

William Hazen

The "theory" of relativity is still just a theory. People are testing it all the time, but it's still just a theory.

I'm not knocking the "ooda" loop, I was introduced to the idea several years ago, it's interesting, but it's still just an intellectual idea.

Reality and ideas are different things, ideas make an attempt to describe reality. Reality just is, no intellectual conjecture needed. The theory (no matter how good it is) is not actually the interaction.

To quote Wilber, "Don't mistake the map for the land."

Chris Hein wrote: You're talking about a theory, not realistic training. An intellectual theory is different then "realistic training".

Sure, tell that to the Marine Corps -- bunch of vapid theorists those guys. . They trained me and generations of naval aviators. OODA came out of Boyd's examination of aerial combat, which is primarily distinguished by the remote nature of its sensory connection to the opponent -- emphasizing the analytic factor of engagement. That is also a factor increasingly affecting the modern infantry and mixed arms battlefield, hence the adoption of OODA by the Corps. Aikido (and other traditional arts) are of the more immediate sensory variety -- hence the distinction I make.

Chris Hein wrote: The "theory" of relativity is still just a theory. People are testing it all the time, but it's still just a theory. I'm not knocking the "ooda" loop, I was introduced to the idea several years ago, it's interesting, but it's still just an intellectual idea. Reality and ideas are different things, ideas make an attempt to describe reality. Reality just is, no intellectual conjecture needed. The theory (no matter how good it is) is not actually the interaction. To quote Wilber, "Don't mistake the map for the land."

Sorry Chris...Eric beat me to the "punch" LOL He got inside my LOOP LOL With all due respect Chris I will chalk your "argument" up to your lack of experience on the subject matter being discussed.. Hopefully instead of pulling Philosophy 101 Arguments out about ideas and reality... You will take the time to educate yourself and understand the application and principles behind Boyd's "idea"

William Hazen

The military actually fights, and trains full speed real time, ie realistic training.

They also devise theories (as colonel Boyd did) and study ideas about fighting. These are two different things.

This is why it's funny to talk about theories as if it's "realistic training".

Philosophy 101 has as much to do with “realistic” training as the OODA loop does.

Chris Hein wrote: The military actually fights, and trains full speed real time, ie realistic training. They also devise theories (as colonel Boyd did) and study ideas about fighting. These are two different things. This is why it's funny to talk about theories as if it's "realistic training". Philosophy 101 has as much to do with “realistic” training as the OODA loop does.

So you're saying that the Armed Services extensive application of the OODA Loop in thier "realistic full speed real time" training is "funny"?

Drop the Rock Chris....

William Hazen

Chris Hein wrote: They also devise theories (as colonel Boyd did) and study ideas about fighting. These are two different things. This is why it's funny to talk about theories as if it's "realistic training". Philosophy 101 has as much to do with "realistic" training as the OODA loop does.

Don't play Go much, do you? Boyd's effort to derive the structure of OODA from aerial combat was curiously presaged in a suggestive image in Sun Tzu:

"The quality of decision is like the well-timed swoop of a falcon which enables it to strike and destroy its victim."

A few other choice illustrations of the long association between "philosophizing" and "practical" results.

"Know the other, know one's own, a hundred battles pass without danger; not knowing the other, but knowing one's own -- one win, one loss; not knowing other, not knowing one's own, every battle must be lost."

"The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand."

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."

"Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory."

"Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy."

OODA is applied by the Marines and others in one way to attack the enemy's strategy. I suggest that Aikido is intended to develop (train) and employ a mode of related strategic principles -- designed to attack, not only the decision delay in the strategic process, but making the decision -- the active will of the enemy -- a weapon against him, by never interposing our own will (decision) to contest it.

Paraphrasing Mencken, Aikido is the principle that the enemy always deserves to get what he wants -- and to get it good and hard.

I think you both miss the point, that's ok.

As a current Active Duty Army Officer, I will speak on OODA. It is a model/methodology that is used by the military to help in the decision making process.

It is actually used in the field during execution (real time). Maybe not explicitly or formally, but it is used informally in everything we do.

Yes it is a model, just like the MDMP (Military Decision Making Process), which we field grades spend hours and days debating over it's merits good and bad.

models and methodologies provide framework. Framework is important when you are trying to gain knowledge and share that knowlede with others. Sometimes you may abbreviate the process, but it is important to recognize the process and make a conscious decision to dismiss parts of the process, not just because you are lazy, or inept. That is when mistakes are made, and you may not even know it.

on another note: within the Modern Army Combative Program we use OODA.

Our school house at Benning constantly collects information from the field. We have over 600 documented cases of unarmed "hand to hand" conflict.

From that, and from the students and instructors that train in MAC-P daily, we are constantly adapting and re-interpreting how we train MAC-P.

Now THIS is realism in Martial Art, empty handed training.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: on another note: within the Modern Army Combative Program we use OODA. Our school house at Benning constantly collects information from the field. We have over 600 documented cases of unarmed "hand to hand" conflict. From that, and from the students and instructors that train in MAC-P daily, we are constantly adapting and re-interpreting how we train MAC-P. Now THIS is realism in Martial Art, empty handed training.

Thank you Sir. Out of Curiousity (Since I kinda of already know the answer) Would you also suggest that Tactical Combat Operations in the War on Terror and our current Asymetric Warfare Doctrine is strongly influanced by the OODA framework?

Rangers Lead the Way Sir!!!

William Hazen