Boyd biography

[jacob]

https://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pil ... 316796883/

The only biography I've ever read that I had a hard time putting down. Boyd (ENTJ as far as I can tell) was Air Force pilot who formalized energy-fighting (using the vertical instead of turn and burn) which in turn led to the development of the F15, F16, and F18 planes (his unofficial coalition, the "Fighter Mafia" was directly involved in the last two). Later in life he started deconstructing war strategy and questioned the static/attrition strategies turning himself into a warrior scholar. He was [supposedly?] behind much of the success of Desert Storm. An absolute iconoclast who said things like "you can either be someone or do something"(*) and "if a man asks for loyalty, give him integrity; if he asks for integrity, give him loyalty". He did not publish much himself preferring to unload in 6+ hour long presentations, but he did write a couple of things: Here's one http://www.goalsys.com/books/documents/ ... EATION.pdf

(*) You can choose between playing politics and advancing your career or you can do something correctly.

PS: He is most famous for the OODA loop. The OODA loop is normally presented in a very simplified version compared to his original. I wasn't as impressed before. Now I am.

[AxelHeyst]

The best book I've found for grokking his theory is Frans P Osinga's Science, strategy, and War. Osinga walks you through the briefings in a way to build from the earlier work towards the increasing sophistication of the later work, and explains a lot of context like what was Boyd reading. But Osinga's book has almost no information about Boyd himself, so the biography is excellent to pair with it (or vice versa).

eta: I first read Osinga maybe 15 years ago. Ever since then, my reading notes on many nonfiction books that I like are peppered with "Boyd! Boyd said this!"

Orientation is the schwerpunkt.

[jacob]

The best book I've found for grokking his theory is Frans P Osinga's Science, strategy, and War. Osinga walks you through the briefings in a way to build from the earlier work towards the increasing sophistication of the later work, and explains a lot of context like what was Boyd reading. But Osinga's book has almost no information about Boyd himself, so the biography is excellent to pair with it (or vice versa).

Okay, you just cost me $55

One thing that the biography illustrated was the downside of the self-taught renaissance man [when it comes to trying to change the world and going against "the system"]. It spoke to me because I've battled the same issues and therefore felt instant empathy. You're super-widely read but you also [truly] get to recognize how much you don't know know. This is quite unlike the expert-phd who is quite confident in themselves because they know everything within their box and they know that they know. I've been there. Living in a world that demands that you provide citations to authority to prove your point easily leads to imposter syndrome when going out of the box. This in turn causes endlessly revising and agonizing over single words. Being ignored by the establishment because ideas are not presented in the right format of academic style treatises citing previous work; yet also understanding that the ideas are too big for that format. And that it would be a total drag to conform to that format. I think it's a legit problem when the idea is bigger than the man. Writing is great for regurgitating received knowledge, but at this level you want people to think... to become thinkers. I can see why Boyd followed a "6 hour briefing or nothing"-strategy. It's good that people are trying to pick up from that.

Orientation is the schwerpunkt.

Indeed. When I first saw the deeper depth---I used to think of OODA as trivial control theory---I immediately thought of Kegan. It's essentially about fighting at a higher Kegan level than the enemy. Understanding the understanding of the "enemy" and proceeding to mess with it. Ultimately, it's better to see it as a dance. I think that's how Bruce Lee saw it.

[AnalyticalEngine]

Interesting stuff. I remember they mentioned Boyd and his OODA loop during the SWAT portion of police academy. The ability to think faster and react faster than the enemy is a skill that will make or break a combat situation.

From the paper Jacob posted:

To comprehend and cope with our environment we develop mental patterns or concepts of meaning. The purpose of this paper is to sketch out how we destroy and create these patterns to permit us to both shape and be shaped by a changing environment. In this sense, the discussion also literally shows why we cannot avoid this kind of activity if we intend to survive on our own terms.

This is fascinating because it seems to be a solution to the Kuhnian paradigm problem I've been grappling with lately. That is, if nothing makes sense outside of a paradigm--if you are always trapped inside a paradigm by nature of how the mind works--how can you ever be free? His solution seems to be to build and destroy paradigms rapidly so they're always properly suiting the environment.

[theanimal]

Certain to Win by Chet Richards is a little less technical but is Boyd's strategy applied to business. The author worked closely with Boyd in the military. All drafts of the book were reviewed by Boyd.

ETA: Other related books that concern/apply Boyd's principles independently are Toyota Production System: Beyond Large Scale Production and Thriving on Chaos.

[guitarplayer]

Ha! Just at the time when I set to familiarize myself with Boyd's work and approach (literally yesterday or two days ago). Thank you all for all the references put together nicely.

Also, his briefings are gathered below in a form reminiscent of my uni times.

https://www.colonelboyd.com/boydswork

[7Wannabe5]

In viewing the
instinct for survival in this manner we imply
that a basic aim or goal, as individuals, is to
improve our capacity for independent action.
The degree to which we cooperate, or
compete, with others is driven by the need to
satisfy this basic goal. If we believe that it is
not possible to satisfy it alone, without help
from others...

-"Destruction and Creation"- John R. Boyd (italics mine)

Might be due to the fact that I am currently reading "Debt" by Graeber and critiques of standard economic theory, but I am tiring of arguments starting from the false premise of independent adult (likely a man*) popping up fully formed from a cabbage patch on to an island where he can choose to either live like Robinson Crusoe (without Friday) harvesting pineapples on his own OR choose to trade, compete, co-operate with other humans.

* because even the basic social structure and drive and consequences of the sexual dyad is readily neglected in this premise.

[jacob]

Might be due to the fact that I am currently reading "Debt" by Graeber and critiques of standard economic theory, but I am tiring of arguments starting from the false premise of independent adult (likely a man*) popping up fully formed from a cabbage patch on to an island where he can choose to either live like Robinson Crusoe (without Friday) harvesting pineapples on his own OR choose to trade, compete, co-operate with other humans.

Hmmm... but the previous paragraph was

Studies of human behavior reveal that the actions we undertake as individuals are closely related to survival, more importantly, survival on our own terms. Naturally, such a notion implies that we should be able to act relatively free or independent of any debilitating external influences—otherwise that very survival might be in jeopardy. In viewing the instinct for survival in this manner we imply that a basic aim or goal, as individuals, is to improve our capacity for independent action.

... so that's what motivates it. Survival is of course a Beige goal and [young] Boyd, as well as the military per se, was/is very much of the Red cloth, where it's about winning and making sure that the opponent knows they lost. Another value-coding might phrase it differently. However, the key point here is agency. This requires independent action. Dependent action is just a predictable function of independent action. This makes it uninteresting in terms of understanding motivations. If there's a group of people composed or 1 independent person who says "I want what I want" and N dependent people who says "I want want he/she wants", one needs to focus on the independent agent. The rest literally follows from that.

The paper is essentially about volition.

Insofar the dependents choose to become independent, it just introduces them on par with the other players.

A modern way of phrasing it is that he makes a distinction between "live players" and "dead players". From the perspective of the "live players", the "dead players" are better thought of as part of the environment ("furniture") than the opposition (or allies).

[jacob]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l8RXwUIcWY is a rough example exemplifying a generation 3/4 warfare mindset as it was understood in the late 1990s/early 2000s.

To understand why generations/meta-depth matters, read e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three ... em_(novel). Short story is that there's no way to defend against [levels] one can not or refuses to see.

[AnalyticalEngine]

Does generation/meta-depth come from Boyd? I haven't heard that term before.

[AxelHeyst]

4th generation warfare was coined by Bill Lind, iirc, who was influenced by Boyd and part of a military reform movement in the 80s. John Robb was an interesting author keen on 4gw stuff, his book Brave New War was impactful to my understanding of global conflict back around 2010 when I read it. I assume it's still a worthwhile read, but I also assume there's more recent stuff that integrates the last decade plus of thinking and evolution of conflict and asymmetric warfare.

[7Wannabe5]

Survival is of course a Beige goal and [young] Boyd, as well as the military per se, was/is very much of the Red cloth, where it's about winning and making sure that the opponent knows they lost.

The paper hops from the level of physics to the level of complex human decision making without taking into account any of the levels in between. For instance, what would concept formation in aid of survival of the individual look like at the level of simple creatures who reproduce asexually? Does the asexual reproducer win by surviving or by becoming no longer an individual?

In this context, when acting within a rigid
or essentially a closed system, the goal seeking effort of individuals and societies to improve their capacity for independent action
tends to produce disorder towards randomness
and death. On the other hand, as already
shown, the increasing disorder generated by
the increasing mismatch of the system concept with observed reality opens or unstructures the system.

- "Destruction and Creation"

Beyond very rough metaphor, in what manner is a human society or the brain of an individual human, no matter how rigid, closed in the sense to which the second law of thermodynamics applies? If I consider, for instance, a human in my social circle whose brain is too rigid to accept the concept of climate change, it is pretty clear that the flows of energy from external sources in the form of, perhaps, Culver's burgers and fries are not the limiting factor. In fact, it is a well known phenomenon that humans with bi-polar disease will consume large quantities of sugar (because only sugar fuels the brain) and sometimes come up with pretty creative ideas. So, at the level of rough physics analogy, I would say it is a process more like springs being compressed that leads to creative production, rather than the sort of weak, random, messy destruction associated with entropy and death.

[Smashter]

I am getting interested in all things Boyd. I enjoyed reading about how hardcore he was with regards to cutting down his living expenses once he was out of the military.

From the book from the OP:

When Boyd retired as a full colonel with twenty-four years of service, his retirement pay was $1,342.44 per month plus COLA-the cost-of-living allowance. Even in 1975 that was a pitifully small sum to support a wife and five children. Boyd could easily have followed the route of many senior officers and gone to a well-paying job with a defense contractor. But his real life’s work lay ahead and he sensed the dangers of accepting a civilian job. Boyd knew he had to be independent and he saw only two ways for a man to do this: he can either achieve great wealth or reduce his needs to zero. Boyd said if a man can reduce his needs to zero, he is truly free: there is nothing that can be taken from him and nothing anyone can do to hurt him.

Boyd stopped buying clothes. The cars that he and Mary drove would, over the next decade, become rambling wrecks. He even refused to buy a case for his reading glasses; instead, he carried them around in an old sock. And despite the rising anger of his children, he said the family would continue to live in the basement apartment on Beauregard.

[The Old Man]

$1342.44 per month = $16,100 per year in 1975.

Adjusting for inflation that would be ~ $90,000 per year in 2023.

He is hardly starving. A wife and five children could easily be supported on that income. Would depend a lot on his location.

It is true that many ex-military get jobs after they separate from the military. With his background he could probably get a very sweet deal in the military-industrial complex.