Instead of tagging this one on the end of the other post, “The Air Force and OODA,” I thought this could go in its own place. I’ve wondered if there was any way that my learning Biochemistry for four years could possibly have anything to do with competition theory, i.e. OODA. I believe I’ve come up with something, which may be mindless garble, and I think that there may be a parallel in both human anatomy as well as chemical rates of reaction. Stand by for possible idiocy (my version of a disclaimer that this could all be crap.)
After reading a lot about how OODA actually is meant to be understood, my view of what Boyd and his associates deemed to be the ideal way that OODA is run is through the fusion of Observation and Orientation, leading implicitly into Action. While observations themselves are important, it’s not until they are paired with Orientation until they have context and meaning. This not only allows for the creation of possible actions, but leads one to implicitly choose the best one.
I’ll start with the most obvious parallel I’ve found between Boyd’s OODA, “Loop,” and my limited experience in the biochemical realm (Shameless Plug!). Everyone’s had this experience (or something very similar) at some time in their lives. Let’s take, for example, a hot stove, and a careless passer-by, who fails to notice where they are about to place their hand. Apon touching the stovetop, said person immediately jerks their hand back, realizes what happened, and maybe curses at how stupid they are. A fairly simple scenario, which I’m going to make all the more complicated, just for the sake of being difficult.
Since birth, all of us have been pre-programmed with what are commonly called, “knee-jerk reactions,” or reflexes. While the brain is responsible for cognitive thought and higher level learning, the spinal cord has this reflexive type of processing power. Instead of waiting for the nerve impulses to travel the entire way back to the brain for a decision, the spinal cord holds responsibility for reacting to potentially life-threatening dangers. So when we put our hand on the stove, the spinal cord automatically sends back messages to the muscles to immediately retract it. The signal continues on to the brain in the form of pain, but by that time, the appropriate action has already been taken. As I see it, these are the perfect biological demonstrations of the most efficient version of Boyd’s OODA, “Loop.” According to Col. Chet Richards’ many presentations and diagrams, to operate at the fastest tempo we must be able to appreciate what’s happening, know what to do (Observe and Orient), and be able to do it (Action), all the while learning from the situation (Decide). Looking back to the scenario, the person’s nervous system has the ability to accomplish the desired task (pull the hand away) without, “conscious,” thought. Actually, by the time the person looks at their hand, it has already been pulled back, leaving the only time-consuming step (Decide) to be reflected on after the action has happened, rather than be deliberated as the hand remains on the stove. The body implicitly knows what needs to be done, and does it, leaving the brain to learn not to do that anymore.
The chemical side is a little more in depth.
In looking at an OODA diagram as a chemical reaction, Observation and Orientation can be viewed as reagents; alone they are pretty useless, but put together they can yield some crazy stuff (pardon the technical jargon.) These are followed by Decision, an intermediate, and Action, the product. Apologies for outlining OODA as a linear process, let’s just assume this version is for learning, in which case a decision is needed, and is therefore the most time-consuming.
The parallel here lies in our desire to speed up both our OODA, “Loops,” and chemical reactions. In the case of OODA, we want to be able to be as quick and therefore unpredictable as possible so as to create and exploit opportunities as our competitor makes mistakes. In the chemical realm, it really boils down to, “we don’t want to wait so long for products.” In a nutshell. In that case, we look to the rate of the reaction as the means by which we speed things up. And there are a few ways that I think can relate to OODA. Three things usually speed things up chemically, those being heat, reagent concentration and catalysts. In the case of OODA, I suggest that heat can relate to stress, concentration can relate to the number of inputs into OODA, and the catalyst of OODA is simply the implicit feed forward from Observation and Orientation straight into action.
Think about it this way: when the situation is more stressful (or the reaction is heated), a decision may be quicker in coming, or else risk mental collapse under the additional mental burden. This is easily seen in enzyme activities, where most have a certain temperature at which they are the most efficient, beyond which they greatly drop off in activity and eventually denature (break down). When the number of inputs into a situation increase (or we increase reagent concentration), we may also be able to make quicker decisions because we have much more information on the subject. Not only that, but we can do it with increased confidence.
Possibly the quickest and easiest way to increase speed is to add a catalyst. Normally, a catalyst is a very small, seemingly insignificant addition to a reaction that permits it to proceed rapidly to completion by lowering the energy of activation (Ea) for the particular reaction. The easy relation to OODA is simply the implicit path leading from the Observe/Orient fusion straight into action. If we can parallel the Decision with a chemical reaction’s Ea, then the path of implicit guidance and control from Orientation seems to be the fabled, “perfect catalyst,” by eliminating the obstacle of Ea altogether.
One final idea stirring around that I’ve been thinking about is the possible connection between OODA and Le Chatelier’s principle of chemical equilibrium. This asserts that every reaction is in fact an equilibrium between reagents and products, the concentrations or amounts of each being dependent on the environmental conditions. Furthermore, it states that any change to the environment will affect the concentrations of the reaction until it reaches a new equilibrium. Some define it roughly as, “Any change in status quo prompts an opposing reaction in the responding system.” Isn’t this the nature of OODA entirely? When we have an understanding of the environment in which we are competing, can’t we implicitly know whether to act? Wouldn’t different environments then lead us to change our equilibrium in order for us to thrive? Isn’t it our goal to purposely change our competitor’s environment, thereby forcing them to adapt their equilibrium to what we want them to see? If we change the environment rapidly enough, will they then break down?
Woah. I just blew my own mind. Until next time.
