วีดีโอ

Thanks...Army Strong!!!!

This is awesome and I really would like to learn more about mapping.

We all use induction and deduction all the time and what you explained as "abductive reasoning" also appears to me as induction. All the time throughout our life and also in your profession during operations you create mental models formed by input of various kinds (theories, organized and unorganized information, etc.). Furthermore induction can also be fed into itself, leading to amplified reasoning. And then you can reason about the mental model you have created. Induction basically just describes creating a mental model based on observation (and thus automatically generalizing to a degree - seeking for patterns like the center of gravity, CCs, CRs, CVs, and so on), which also includes observing what various scientific theories say and combining these to get a better picture of a situation. Deduction is then formulating a plan of actions to test this mental model. In your profession it would be akin to having set up your mental model via induction and then applying it, in the hopes that it holds true (unlike scientists who should always strive for falsification instead of verification). Just think about it: You go into an area of operations. You analyze the situation and organize the information as best as you can. You start classifying your means and so on. Thereby you create a mental model. A "theory". A way of actions you think will help you improve the "end state" in the desired direction. -> Induction You then go ahead and apply this set of actions, this mental model, in the hopes you made the correct assumptions and analysis and it pans out in your favor. -> Deduction You then use what you have learnt, together with what went wrong, together with the old input that led to the first model, to refine your model. -> Induction (fed into itself plus the new additional information) You then go ahead and apply it again. -> Deduction And so on... It might be that it isn't as rigorously systemized and named as such as it is in the case of actual science, but you are constantly doing it as a human being and you even have, as I know from your other videos (which are all great, by the way), a formalized approach to induction and deduction.

What is the framework you use for the systems analysis?

I honestly could not agree more with the comment below on "overly intellectualizing operations and burying it in terminology" - well said.

This is sooo good. Congrats Colonel! It's nice to see some deep epistemic expertise in the military

does someone knock on the door in the 6th minute?

So glood

PMESII-PT wasn't designed to analyze the Operational Environment... it was developed to help design Operational Environments for Exercises...in other words, PMESII-PT helps generate stories/narratives for simulation purposes... it provides building blocks for story telling. The Army has made the error of reverse engineering PMESII-PT to dissect the OE in and effort to understand it. Our brains don't work that way, and breaking a complex OE into sub-componenets removes those sub-components out of their original context.

hello Gal, i don't understand very well the analysis pemsii pt mainly rhe PT i really want to know it , if someone want to explain me it i will be very happy!

GOD BLESS YOU

My god can you put the camera on a stand, I about got motion sickness trying to watch

Character In the video It's great, I like it a lot $$

The video sound is pretty good, beyond my imagination

Sir, wish I would have picked your brain more in SA…thanks for the info

Some segments in the video are stamped not adjacent to each other

holy cow can you please put the phone down

OODA loop the solution.

Shoot, move, communicate. What's the version of Cyber Domain?

A tripod will enhance the professionalism of filming and the overall video

Thank you , briefly but understood. would you name some resources, pls?

Can we change the understanding question to What is the Current State?, and What is the Root Cause of Current State? Then What is the required End State?, and What is our Operational approach to get to the end State?

Practicing my intellectual humility as much as I can, I am grateful for this short exposé in an ontology of PME evaluation. I do, however, struggle to see the parallels between the three ways of assessing; to me they are discussing different things. In the first, I see a concept of ‘learning to learn’ where the students (individually and as a group) are developing their metacognitive skills. Such skills are generally discipline-agnostic and transferrable - but still worthy of reflection (both in the mirror and by external observers; viz faculty assessments). The realm of post-positivism as an epistemology should be the goal of all PME study if we are to genuinely prepare leaders for future wars. Type 1 is extremely important (both I&G) and should be overtly emphasised as the raison d’être of PME. Assessment is a significant motivator to learning. The second area of assessment described (Type 2) speaks more to the ‘body of knowledge’ evaluation-in this case strategic thought/practise. I agree this (sadly) becomes the dominant area of assessment on PME courses. Our obsession with tangible KPIs of individual achievement has become a ‘tail wagging the dog’ situation. Ever since PME institutes cozied up to academia, we have been seduced by their coveted civilian qualification at the expense of what we actually need. Universities, in turn, have industrialised to the point of mass education, where they have sold off the family silver (brand reputation) in what many refer to the commodification of education. Group assessments do not suit their Taylorism ideology-yet collectivism is the very workplace performance we want in our graduates. Assessments drive behaviour on courses and university individualism is antithetical to the military culture. Universities need to accept that we, the customer, do not want exactly the same product they deliver to the capitalist market. A solution to the above imbalance would be a modern equivalent to the trivium where deeper cognitive skills are developed through a learner-centric (constructivist) overlay to what the naïve would think of as merely ‘pedagogy of essentialism’-yet done with a deeper purpose. In other words, PME students still need to be taught the family business (viz a body of knowledge relating to the profession of arms) but synergistically exploiting topic exploration through simultaneous cognitive development techniques (Hegelian dialectics, formal logic, philosophy, design thinking, etc). The challenge is finding enough trigger-pullers (Combat-proven faculty) who understand the difference between their heritage of Pavlovian training and higher education’s subtle acculturation of transferable metacognition development. The video’s search for measures to assess Type 2 can be easily found using Levels II, III, and IV of Kirkpatrick’s model. These should be aligned to proper curricula which climb to the highest levels of systems such as the SOLO Taxonomy (a more sophisticated version of Bloom’s). Finally, Type 3 of the video, IMHO, speaks to ongoing curricula reviews where there is a genuine desire to seek continuous improvement. If I have understood the video explanation correctly, this is where the collective improvement of a group is compared with previous courses’ performance. Ideally the results still need to be cross-referenced against mitigating factors, covariant analysis and the danger of post hoc ergo propter hoc to know what should be kept and what should be refined. Noting that such metacognitive skill development needs time to ferment and is often not fully appreciated until the posting after next. Similarly, to truly understand the increase in performance of a group, the pre and post course data should be compared against a control group who did not receive the PME experience. These people would need to match the experimental cohort demographics-quite a challenge; so a large sample size would be needed to validate the findings. Overall, though, while I see the three types as a great conversation starter (and all in 6 minutes!), there are some great discussion points to take this topic even further. Sorry for my esoteric ramblings. Great vid, thanks for posting.

Is there not a risk of achieving confirmation bias through abductive reasoning?

Might want to invest O&M funds into a tripod. or a rock on which to lean the cell phone camera upon.

The way I'm being taught this in CGSC, somehow the COG is always just the enemy/friendly force. The way this is explained in the video, the COG is the "who" that does the "what" (the CC's), with support from the CR's. This leads to the inevitable conclusion in every situation that the Enemy/Friendly commander is the COG. Obviously this can't be true in every case. I think this boxes planners into a single solution that is ultimately unimaginative and not creative enough to really be useful. Also it appears from the video that the COG comes from a CR. I realize that takes some interpretation from what is said in the video, but that's what I'm being taught. JP 5-0 says nothing about where the COG comes from (whether its a CC or a CR). That leads to confusion on the part of instructors who rely on this video to teach, and confusion on the part of students who take this approach at face value.

Interesting

HOLA MUY BUEN VÍDEO GRACIAS QUISIERA SABER SI TIENE UN MANUAL PARA PODER INCREMENTAR EL CONOCIMIENTO

What about concurrent execution of EDGE? I feel that would be most advantageous if possible.

Outstanding video, Tino! I'm looking forward to the rest of the discussion!

The camera man is definitely inept!😂

wanna know how the amy is flawed... i couldnt concentrate on what you were saying because your sleeve cuffs are all fucked up and distracting me.

Thanks for this clear description. Very helpful.

Thanks so much Sir.

Just want to know how deep is military need to study on politics in completion of the mission?

Thank you for posting these videos, they've been extremely helpful. SMC Class 69

I’m not a pro, but I’ve found that PMESII, and adding Spiritual helps. For some the shamanic concept of “Spirit of Place” is relevant, and I’m working with the book Applying Psychology to the Environment, by Susan Cave. You might ask Van Horn, drawing from Left of Bang. Also, fractal scalar phenomena. I’ve also found that LOC Bang is some other people’s work. Regards.

You might consider the difference between how the resident and distance education students work in a group. In his Ted Talks, General McChrystal points out that as Strategic Leader he was using various collaborative techniques(www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal?language=en) to develop a strategy to counter Al Qaeda . Since the National Security community of interest is using more tools (Defense Collaberation System (DCS), chat, email, teleconference, etc..) to collaborate outside of face to face. One might conduct a group exercise in which the second year DDE students and resident students collaborate on a group project using the latest online collaborative tools. You should access if the students are able develop strategy in this enviornment since this what they will operate in their future assignments.

A clear and useful presentation. Thank you.

Thanks. It ıs all clear now.

Can you please have the war college start posting more learning lectures with practical exercises? I would love to be able to do things as a Captain to prepare me for future PME.

thanks

This is excellent and long overdue work/research. You have hit the nail on the head focusing on "PERFORMANCE." Assertion: If you want higher levels of individual and group learning you need to enhance ACTIVE LEARNING. Look at the ratio of seminar dialog (passive learning) to true workshop/problem solving (active learning) as the primary educational methodology. Also, how many students in the average seminar are TRULY participating in all aspects of seminar dialog? The college needs to focus on experiential learning (wargaming, etc.) as the primary methodology for learning transfer and achieving learning outcomes. BL: Take a "DEEP SMARTS" approach as the primary educational methodology hbr.org/2004/09/deep-smarts . Changing the culture at the USAWC (faculty/leadership) will be a major task. Good luck with this important work. TIME FOR CHANGE. Work REAL experiential learning (active learning) into each and every lesson at the War College. I would argue you will see improvements in student learning.

A British perspective: we had some success by tweaking two things. Firstly, and most importantly never define a node by an object or event, but what effect it is delivering within the time and space of the operation. This avoids fixation on a specific system or tactic which can be replaced or reinvented (particularly in asymmetric war). Secondly, as you define nodes, try to force them into a tree structure like a hypothesis tree. Very brief comment, I know But kick these ideas about, see how you go.

Sir, thanks for taking the time to publish these videos. I appreciate it very much.

The process of elimination is deductive reasoning, and we do it everyday. Gathering intelligence and using it to formulate a plan is inductive reasoning and we do it everyday. Calling this abductive reasoning seems to be making a distinction without a difference. I am not sure how this is helpful because it is nothing different than what we are already attempting to hone.

Great thank a lot for putting us wise and providing a new constructive perspective of solving complex problems .... looking forward for more informative videos.

Great to see you making videos again! Make more please!

Sir thank you for these videos. Please continue to post. I have watched many of the videos multiple times. I especially appreciated the videos on design and systems based thinking. Your videos have really helped to fine tune my skillsets.

Could you recomend some books about it?