Talk:OODA loop

message: is it OH-DAH (as in "oh" in "uh-oh") or OO-DAH ("oo" as in poodle)? 205.174.22.26 (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just read as the four letters. O - O - D - A as far as I know. P0M (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is pronounced OO-DAH with the OO pronounced as it is in poodle.--Looper5920 (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard all of those, and been corrected from each to use each of the others. I try to remember to pronounce "OODA loop" as "Boyd loop", and have never been corrected for doing so. htom (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are alternatives that came later. Probably Boyd's own way of understanding and explaining things changed as he refined his observations. Boyd was trying to understand the process by which he wiped other pilots out. Implicit in his thinking is the observation that in the time between being scrambled and initial visual contact with an opponent a pilot has the time to think is measured discursive terms, e.g., to review flight characteristics of the airplane types he may be up against. After visual contact occurs, much more "computing power" goes to ongoing assessment of the opposition, building an internal map of the current situation, etc. When combat is engaged, the processing occurs in a mostly non-discursive way. Feedback is monitored at all times, and it is directed toward updating the internal map and projections based on that map, always seeking a way to victory. After the battle, a survivor can go back to discursive mode and prepare to be debriefed.  This entire process, as diagrammed by Boyd, involves many feedback loops. One question, regarding any alternatives to the Boyd loop(s), would be whether they uncover new processes that find no place in Boyd's scheme. P0M (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation 

message: This article needs to explain what alternatives to the OODA Loop are, and the advantages and disadvantages. In particular, if this is the operative paradigm now, what was it before? --James S. 03:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the operative paradigm now in cognitive science. The idea that one person has one OODA loop is compatible with rationalism and symbolic artificial intelligence, in which the mind is a logic engine with one CPU.  Behaviorism, control theory, contemporary cognitive science, and functional neuroscience are incompatible with OODA; they would each at least insist that cognition is a series of thousands, millions, or possibly billions, of OODA loops running in parallel.  Consider as an example Rodney Brooks' subsumption architecture for robot behavior, which is literally a few dozen OODA loops running in parallel.Philgoetz (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The big questions are whether observation, orientation, decision-making, and action should all be reified in this way; and if so, whether they have a stereotypical sequence.  Consider optical flow algorithms for motion control, or the cognitive wiring diagrams of insects whose brains have been well-mapped, such as drosophila.  Sensors are linked directly to effectors.  If you want to say there are "observation" and "orientation" steps, you'd have to say those are abstractions which are implemented by the wiring between neurons, and controlled by evolution, not cognition.Philgoetz (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure that you understand the purpose of the OODA loop, which is not a descriptive/explanatory model from the cognitive sciences; it is a prescriptive model akin to those that are designed in the design sciences. It's a heuristic technique that people use to help guide cognition, not an explanation of how cognition works. On the differences between the explanatory sciences and the design sciences, see, e.g.:  Biogeographist (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it was OODA: Observe, Overreact, Destroy, Apologise. --68.51.72.144 (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about, "Think before you act." I don't mean to be flippant but while I can see the advantage of having the approach formalised with a name, I don't believe the OODA loop represents the unique understanding of the problem which its proponents imply. Just my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 10:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The OODA loop is not the only model of its type. See also, e.g., Decision cycle. Biogeographist (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs comparison to alternatives 

message: The italicized words in the opening sentence are not all formatted the same - please look at that and fix it, I don't know how.
216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The initial letters of four words are put in bold text because they form the acronym OODA. Is that what you are talking about?  It's intentional.P0M (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening sentence 

message: i saw another ooda fig. from smt? net where one feedback line is from decision to second o. will someone doublecheck?!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.17.83 (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help if you could give us the URL of the diagram you saw. To me it seems unlikely to be accurate, but perhaps I am guessing wrong about how the line was drawn.P0M (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Fixed.P0M (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  fig: feedbacks identical here, pls chk func. 

message: While there has been a lot of positive spin on this, its application to land battles has been criticised
http://dodccrp.org/events/10th_ICCRTS/CD/papers/365.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA374770
www.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fjohn-boyds-art-of-war%2F&ei=MpL6U72wGdGfyASYo4DIBQ&usg=AFQjCNHJFkUst2OG7zgEewKmAqJ_C9LFsQ&sig2=habsawIfjgfBrkAT381ebA
cheers
Greglocock (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder how this is a thing? To me it seems like a rather theoretical bunch of obvious things and ancient wisdoms packed into a approach\doctrine\scheme. It becomes interesting when concrete, applicable, non-obvious\trivial consequences are derived. The article must hint at these. --Moritzgedig (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs a criticism section 

message: Frans Osinga argues that Boyd's own views on the OODA loop are much deeper, richer, and more comprehensive than the common interpretation of the 'rapid OODA loop' idea
And? In what way? Who is this person and why do we care? It's nice that a reference for (Dr.?) Osinga's book is provided, but is the entire section that follows based on his book? It could use some inline page citations if that's the case, and better language to distinguish between the "common" interpretation and this supposedly richer, more comprehensive one. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frans Osinga reference 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on OODA loop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110324054054/http://www.danford.net:80/boyd/essence.htm to http://www.danford.net/boyd/essence.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150222130058/http://powerseductionandwar.com:80/ooda-and-you/ to http://powerseductionandwar.com/ooda-and-you/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070917232626/http://www.codeonemagazine.com:80/archives/1997/articles/jul_97/july2a_97.html to http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1997/articles/jul_97/july2a_97.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140822195905/https://davidullman.com/uploads/OODA_Loop_Crosstalk.pdf to https://davidullman.com/uploads/OODA_Loop_Crosstalk.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, this comment to express my surprise, coming back to this article after a couple of months. Pbritti, you seem to have deleted about two thirds of the article last december? I'm surprised, I would have expected discussion in this page first.
Was there discussion elsewhere? What's the justification?
I'm not saying that the "development" and "applicability" sections were extraordinarily well written, relevant, sourced etc, but I guess it did represent some effort on the part of previous contributors. (I'm not one of them, so it's a not a personal matter) Or was it linked to the copyright discussion above?
To be fair, I came here to gather some description of the phases of the loop (what are the boundaries between Orient and Decide?), and it's not there, and it actually wasn't there before. Maybe I'll try to write it up some time, not in military context because I don't know anything about it, but the OODA loop has been generalized to many different domains. Jrob kiwi (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The portions removed were promotional and referenced to either a self-published promotional pamphlet (as was the case for the very extended block-quote) or not referenced at all. If you do have the time and ability, adding a section on the phases would be outstanding. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks. Maybe I will, but no guarantee. Actually in French there's an interesting detailed section about the phases... maybe just translate that. Fun fact: the french authors say they translated the english version. :-) Jrob kiwi (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most of the article deleted without any discussion? 

message: The article currently does not explain how the OODA loop model is applied, nor is there an explanation of what the four stages (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) mean. With the Brexit example in the last paragraph, it is not made clear how the OODA loops of the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign were disrupted by the Vote Leave campaign, nor is it made clear what it means for the OODA loop to be disrupted. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs an explanation on how the model is used 

message: When was this model first developed?  Applied?  Where and by whom?  With what successes and failures?  Which models did it displace or supersede?  Which models have been developed from it or influenced by it or in opposition to it?  Is the model relevant today, and if so, where and to whom?
There are so many factual questions that need answers before the reader can successfully place this model in context. yoyo (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical facts missing