Attitudes and xGW

[Crosslinked from tdaxp]

Dan,

I’m not sure you’ll be able to get a clean mapping. “Attitudes” are implicit within Boyd’s “Orientation” — the manner or context by which we interpret “Observations”, which then elicit “Decisions” and “Actions”.

“Orientation” is the deepest and most profound of Boyd’s OODA loop, and the most often overlooked or shortchanged.

I believe that all three varieties of “attitudes” will fit within “Orientation” — and that the balance among these three will influence subsequent “Decision” and “Action”.

Well if there 3 components, that means they are 7 combinations of 1 or more components ((2^3)-1).

A logic table could be constructed from that.

Somethings like this:

The top panel are the components in every possible combination: “1” means it matters or is significant, and “0” means it isn’t.

The bottom panel has each xGW and needs to be filled in.

When A, C, and E are all significant for Attitude which xGW (xGWs is it)?

When A and E are significant…

I use logic table to clarify my thinking on issues or in planing.

Originally, I used them when designing application code that had lots of possible conditions and actions.

Dang, the graphic was filtered out of my comment.

Here is the link to it:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/purpleslog/1163918310/

Dan,

I once tried making more explicit the vagueness of Boyd’s loop, particularly the Orientation, by using my own Revised OODA, eh?

However, it strikes me this model can be rationalized if we look at how explicit an attitude is. For instance, cognitive attitudes rely entirely on what people verbally think, while behavioral attitudes might not even reflect what people feel.

When you separate these in this way, you are thinking along the same lines I tried using when I revised the OODA for my own use. Not only did I want to break out of the general vagueness of the Orient phase and explicit/implicit assumptions, but I wanted to separate out the subconscious, unconscious, and the conscious orientations. I did not advance as far in my design as I might have, preferring at that point to leave a little bit of fuzziness; I wanted a more useful OODA design, which I think I achieved, even while knowing some things were not being isolated to perfection!

Flickr photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dreaming5gw/517144426/

What strikes me about your current search is how these “attitudes” may relate to the troika I used for activity:

1. Reflexive/Habitual Acts
2. Impulsive Acts
3. Focused Acts

Loosely, these would be related to attitude in an “implicit——>explicit continuum” as well as an “unconscious——>subconscious——>conscious continuum” like this:

1. Reflexive/Habitual Acts — Implicit, Unconscious
2. Impulsive Acts — Im-/Explicit, Sub-/Conscious
3. Focused Acts — Explicit, Conscious

The second, Impulsive Acts, are guided by some consciously detected observations but without enough info or too much conflicting info for those observations to be understood (and thus, preventing direct Focused Acts or unconscious Reflexive/Habitual Acts); so there is a mix of the explicit, which isn’t entirely understood, and implicit rules urging activity, that leads to Impulsive Acts.

I’ve also mapped the Revised OODA to the generations of war; how that will tie better into your current undertaking is something I’ll consider further.

(Flicker link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dreaming5gw/517144444/)

Dan,

I’ve sent out an email, plus added a new thread to the Contributors section of the forums, concerning using a Group pool at Flickr for D5GW. If you have these images on your Flickr account, joining the pool will allow you to add them to the pool as well, and then I can display them on the on-site D5GW Flickr Album for easier future reference!