"The phrase OODA loop refers to the decision cycle of observe, orient, decide, and act...
...As one of [OODA developer] Boyd's colleagues, Harry Hillaker, put it in "John Boyd,
USAF Retired, Father of the
F16":
The key is to obscure your intentions and make them unpredictable to your opponent while you simultaneously clarify his intentions. That is, operate at a faster tempo to generate rapidly changing conditions that inhibit your opponent from adapting or reacting to those changes and that suppress or destroy his awareness. Thus, a hodgepodge of confusion and disorder occur to cause him to over- or under-react to conditions or activities that appear to be uncertain, ambiguous, or incomprehensible."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop
13 comments:
I expected and predicted here that Trump would get inside Hillary's OODA loop during the debates to devastating effect. I was wrong. He never did.
Disagree. He discombobulated her and took the momentum during the putting-her-in-jail debate. At one time the camera very briefly caught her standing behind him with a zoned out look, then she she caught herself and snapped out of it. If I saw it correctly, and I really think I did. I'd like to see a replay of that.
Trump did out OODA, but it was on the campaign level more than things like the debates. But the explanation is even simpler than that. Hillary let hubris bite her on the ass, assuming she had the campaign in the bag.
She didn't, so she lost. She will always be a loser. She will die a loser.
I clicked on the link and tried to understand that OODA stuff but I got all confused.
Good point, Evi. But OODA applies very much now, keeping the Dems and MSM off-kilter.
lol Bat. I do think Boyd jumped the shark with that diagram at the top.
Evi, Bingo! She lost in 2008 to a community organizer because of smugness. She learned nothing from that defeat and presented the same pathology in 2016.
And, while she will die a loser, she will keep that smugness, "not my fault" until the day she dies. Few picked up on this. But a week or so after the election, Obama nailed her. He talked about having to do the handshaking, "I went to every fish fry in Iowa during the campaign."
I didn't watch the debates. There was nothing for me to gain from them. But I have to ask, in regards to Bags comment; since Hillary was fed the questions in advance (and we know that now, so I understand not knowing at the time), how much of getting inside Hillary's loop can you reasonable expect. He can only throw her off the rebuttals, because she already knew the next question coming from the moderator that shared the questions with her in advance.
Good point, Leland. I'm thinking she was only supplied at the CNN townhall debate...the second one, that I mentioned above...too lazy to check. So he double-dog got in her head, just with his matter of fact threat and analysis of her part in the O admin.
I know Clinton was fed a couple of questions in advance of the debate - it was established that Donna Brazile did that at the Town Hall thing. Was there more? If so, I think that knowing the questions in advance may have affected her performance negatively. Instead of staying engaged, she put herself in neutral and coasted leading to a lackluster, phoned-in, robotic performance. Also, although Trump was all over the place - he gave some great answers but there was a LOT of flailing about as well - her answers were not all that great either.
Bottom line: at least Trump was engaged. Win to Trump.
It was hilarious how well he did the second time. Talk about coming back after that first lack luster performance.
Hmmm. Hilarity wasn't my response.
What came through for me was an awareness of someone attempting to do something they'd never done before, along with a modicum of willingness on their part to take some direction following the first effort.
Post a Comment