One idea that falls out of reading so much Boyd over the last couple of weeks is this bit here (screenshot attached).
Introspection is good(?) in non-adversarial situations. But in adversarial situations it might mean that you're screwed.
(Not sure if I agree 100%)
Conversation
But really the most subtle idea I took away from Boyd is that "messing with your opposition's orientation is the goal of good strategy".
1
6
Replying to
Great post. Read it last night. THought I knew a lot abt boydian stuff. Your post taught me new stuff.
It took me longer than you did. But yes, his stuff is not really immediately applicable. So my enthusiasm is cooled.
1
His stuff works best against human adversaries 1-on-1. In biz, this angle happens less frequent. In fact, I would say, easily counterproductive in biz to focus too much on what other people are doing
Assuming other actors are rivals is bad idea
but I might be wrong 🤷🏻♂️
3
2
Came here to say this! Picking the right opponent seems key. Presumes you’re both intentionally fighting each other. Def not as relevant for startups.
1
1
I am not sure whether "messing" with a competitor needs to be intentional, nor directed at one competitor or directed at all.
You know you're succeeding when the result of your actions is introspection in the sense of finger-pointing.
1
It's the part where your competitor(s) lose(s) touch with reality that they turn from an outward perspective to internal blaming.
I don't target competitors in my business / market, but try to benefit from / develop the opportunities that are afforded to us. The fight is not even where they think the fight is. And it's constantly evolving.