A bit older.
Late back to the party, I was overseas this past week. Iâm not too familiar with Von Moltke, but will definitely give it a read, enjoyed what Iâve read of the Prussians. It was fighting Napoleon when the Prussians established the concept of a general staff, there were various causes that led the Prussians to have poorly trained and lacking in experience generals, so the concept of the general staff was born. Collectively they stood a better chance against Napoleon than any one of them on their own. Itâs also the birth of red / blue team simulations, Prussian colours were blue, hence the blue team being the defensive team. I came across it reading up on red teaming.
In the brief reading I did on Von Moltke now, it looks like a series of options that allows for flexibility on the battle field and greater autonomy in decision making. I donât disagree with that, sounds good. I do think we are mixing pieces in this discussion. So the reason Von Moltke would be fighting the war would be due to a political strategy, expansion of an empire, protection of your home country, better trade routes, whatever. One piece of that might be a military campaign. So the point is strategy ties in to various pieces up and down and strategy is driving what the military are trying to achieve.
We can then say the military commander has a strategy for victory. His goal is victory, and heâll lay out a plan to achieve that, to what level of detail that strategy is articulated would be debated between approaches. Von Moltke might use various options on the battle field to promote greater autonomy and speed of decision making, but those options would still be aligned with his overall strategic vision. We are three layers deep now into strategic execution.
So you have the strategy, then you have execution frameworks which is what we are starting to see here.
Then there is OODA in the mix, OODA is not a strategy, itâs an approach to evaluate and respond to changes, usually it involves an adversary. You need feedback mechanisms in solving problems. If itâs a strategy, you need to keep evaluating if what you are trying to achieve is still the best thing to do. Then you need to keep measuring execution of you strategic plan / approach. Am I executing (visibility of execution and delivery) is what I am doing actually delivering the value intended (once execution is complete did it actually achieve the objective) if not you need to do something else (realignment).
OODA as a principle you can cut up to the size you need in terms of the feedback you want in the context it is used. If you are a fighter pilot, Iâm sure the steps you would perform are well defined with loads of theory. If youâre in cyber security, you might interpret OODA completely differently and you would define your visibility in a different way as well as your action. If youâre a fighter you might want to do it in throughout the fight, or maybe with your coach during rounds. Conceptually these things are useful in different ways, you donât have to use OODA only like a fighter pilot, just like those reading Sun Tsu for business strategy arenât using it exactly how he was. The trick is to understand the root ideas and then look how you can scale the concepts to other problems.
Very cool topic though âŠ
2 Likes
The OODA is a self inflated version of that. The sort of dumb shit ypu would expect at a work meeting.
Now let me chech my coopers colour codes to see if a person is angry with me.c
2 Likes
Really depends on the problem youâre trying to solve.
Stopping, thinking and acting is just a good practice and reminds people to take a moment. Similar to relax, look around, make a call. Usually relates to moments where you are overwhelmed or in a high stress situation. Not going to help you solve larger more complex problems, but definitely has itâs place. More complex problems will require more complex frameworks or approaches, but thatâs still a good principle to follow.
1 Like
Thereâs a fine line between the applicability of something like OODA and reality, just like any other approximation of how to respond to a scenario.
This is where the RBSD crowd always fuck up. They are convinced that in a physical fight, they will have it all plannWHACK. If only they worked the slip bag LOL.
I can think of a few situations OODA makes sense, such as law enforcement. Itâs definitely proven itself military-wise, but we have a big domestic problem in the US with trigger happy cops shooting innocent or marginally guilty people because they are 1) drilled hard and 2) often scared shitless in the field.
A think first, shoot last approach focused on situational awareness is appropriate in public safety. Instead we have cops feeling like they are going into war zones (which in some places is the case). Thatâs a dangerous mix of fight or flight and trained instinctive behavior like a quick draw, you are setting the officer up to be an automaton killing machine, and it happens all the time.
Some would argue restraint and patience puts cops at risk. Iâd argue it would greatly improve the public perception and support of police if they were actually trained to THINK first. Danger comes with the job, but cops with poor trigger discipline just make it all worse.
OODA is strategy. It makes sense to plan for the battle, positioning, etc. But once in battle, youâre reliant on tactics⊠and that is largely based on how you train.
Anyway, letâs not derail down the OODA track, itâs not applicable here.
Apparently this is the first of a 3 day âintensiveâ course on the principles of Wing Chun:
I know why people would be taken in by it, though. Imagine youâre able to be pushed a little bit and he says, ânow imagine this one just drops down the whoosh, thatâs it, so it one flattens, right, and then you just drop the chest like shhhhh thatâs rightâ and suddenly youâre able to resist that little push a little bit more. Youâre like, wow, this guy understands body mechanicsâŠ
âŠexcept youâre doing this ridiculous, unnatural, goofy stance that youâd never pull in real life, let alone a life or death sitation, and is completely and utterly useless as a âbalanceâ exercise considering the person is putting only a tiny amount of push into you evenly and I fucking hate this shit so much. Fucking guru nonsense
1 Like
He made a comment at 21:00 that made me want to tackle him. Something about âfundamental positionâ, âfootballâ, and me knowing he doesnât know football like I do.
Wanker. Seriously I want to take this guy down at full knots.
Wing Chun has good training stances. äș is golden when youâre on your back. Squeezing Adduction stance.
A simpler more open method would fit more varied situations.
Generally i have found these terms used as weasel words. So instead of understanding the subject they understand the jargon. And believe that is the same thing
I was in a human weapon course for work once and we were throwing leg kicks in to a bag.
And the instructor came along and was all like âThat is a strike to the perennial nerve That wolill deaden the something somethingâ and i was like. âYou are such a fuck head. Can you throw a leg kick? Or did you spend your training time learning latin for body parts nobody cares aboutâ
Honestly, everything he says is bullshit hidden under his weak grasp of the English language. Heâs able to make it sound pretentious because of his accent.
Seriously, write out everything he says and read it as a stand alone sentence or paragraph. Itâs bordering on gobbledygook.
From the 21:00 mark you mentioned:
âNow foot direction is the same as force direction, now if you just look at the basic athletic stance, itâs the reference that we all can relate to especially if you have went to ah university and studied eh for physical education for any sports science you know that the basic fundamental precision of the feet is something that happens naturally if you played table tennis and you are in the action your feet is going to be down here when this happening if you are football same if you are tennis or badminton or whatever basket anything you wanna be down here thatâs you know youâre going to go here so youâre not going to be standing like that and youâre not going to be standing like that thereâll be a natural distance between your feet now in the basic athletic stance that is actually the same is just outside shoulder wide âŠâ
I could go on but go back and read that. You could say, âbut Battlefields, heâs demonstrating at the same timeâ, yeah, demonstrating fucking nonsense alongside the nonsense that is spilling out his face.
Iâd be fucking pissed off if the first day of an âintensive 3 day courseâ to identify the three major things that will fix the problems of Wing Chun and the first day you get someone bullshitting to you about the basic athletic stance that is natural.
1 Like
First and foremost, Wing Chun has no problems.
Chunners have problems.
OK, that was really funny.
1 Like
If Wing Chun becomes self-aware, and intelligent, that may have consequences.
Much like if being Vegan or doing Cross fit, has one of those.
Thatâs all we need, itâs not like those fuckers donât already megaphone their shit, much less an algorithm, that has not the wit to understand the Not-Do list is in some cases more important than the to do list.
Something, that the operators of this machinery should take note of.
Some of you are cowards, some fools, some not.
Weâll see, though.
The government as it stands has no time for anything but justifying headlines, like the Soviet Union, in that regard.
Well fuck that, Iâd rather be found dead of suicide, with two shots or more to the back of my own head, and if you find me there, in that way, thatâs a clue.
Thatâs funny because Iâm investigating (pro bono) a suicide/possible murder right now.
2.2M estate.
How do you feel about box cutters.
I have been banned from multiple MA forums, other than this fine one, for saying that.
Thank God for Bullshido.
Seriously though, Wing Chun is my bitch.
Sheâs an easy one.
1 Like