Ok, Boyd is really the most intriguing strategic thinker I've ever come across.
I'm not sure I can finish this week's post in time; there's too much to synthesise.
Conversation
Or rather, there is relatively little to synthesise, but what exists is so profound that it’s difficult to wrap your head around all the implications.
As a taster: Boyd assumes specific strategies are not worth discussing, because discussion makes the strat unviable.
1
2
It’s a bit like the common (Singaporean) criticism of the Thucydides Trap: “knowledge that the trap exists implies that the parties involved will not fall into the trap”
1
And so if you are to construct a general strategic framework but you are not allowed to discuss a specific strategic approach, what are you left with?
You are left with a way of thinking about the world.
1
(Yes, all blog posts that focus on the OODA loop miss the point. As a description of decision making processes, there are far better models out there.)
Replying to
I think the central challenge here is to take the ideas and present them in a way that is useful. Preferably without using big words like ‘dialectic’ and ‘postmodernism’. Because, again, the ideas are really quite simple.
Replying to
Highly recommend Osinga's excellent treatment of Boyd:
1
1
Replying to
I just finished it! I thought Chet Richard’s treatment was bad; Competing Against Time was useful but presented only one applied strategy (albeit an exhaustive one). Coram and Hamming’s bios were good, but narrative. Osinga really does the best job.
2
Show replies