zenpundit.com » J. Scott Shipman

Archive for the ‘J. Scott Shipman’ Category

Tools for Creativity and Stuff

Sunday, October 5th, 2014

[by J. Scott Shipman]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At Boyd and Beyond 2014 this weekend there were a few references to creativity and whether creativity could be taught. I prepared what follows back in August in response to a friend’s request for ideas and/or resources.

Free writing: author Mark Levy’s book Accidental Genius is a good resource of concepts for how to get “it” in writing. Levy argues our internal editor gets in the way of our creativity and advocates writing quickly without regard to style, grammar, etc—the idea being to get the ideas out in a tangible form and provides methods to synthesize. It has a sort of gimmicky feel, but I’ve used variations of his methods four or five times a year—and just used last week to get my head around part of a problem.

Michael Michalko’s THINKPAK, THINKERTOYS, and Cracking Creativity are all good resources, but I’ve found the card deck to be the most valuable (Fred Leland uses these, too). In the card deck Michalko divides his thought-prompting cards into the acronym “SCAMPER” (S-Substitute Something), (C-Combine it with something else), (A- Adapt something to it), (M-Modify or Magnify——[I added miniaturize] it), (P- Put it to some other use), (E- Eliminate Something), (R- Reverse or Rearrange it). Here is a link to the google book. I keep the card deck on my desk and use several times a year.

Visible Thinking has moments (a painful read in places, but there are some good nuggets, too), but the larger theme is The Mind Map Book, which many admire. I know Lynn uses mind maps—and I have several for my boat project. I find them good for getting the ideas out there and establishing connections. I use Mind Maps software—which is very good on a PC, but not so good on a Mac.

Systematically, I have found combining Michalko’s THINKPAK with a Mind Map to be useful, and THINKPAK “backwards” with free writing (using the cards as a jumping off place to begin writing). Handwriting might not be popular with the younger folks, but free-writing isn’t the same on a keyboard for me. It is a question of what style best fits for you.

A Whack on the Side of the Head and A Kick in the Seat of the Pants — both by Roger von Oech [he has a "Whack Pack" set of cards, too, but I don't have them yet.] are campy with dated graphics, but when I’m stuck, one of these books is often my first place to stop. Parts are goofy to be sure, but sometimes goofy is good.

At the other end of the spectrum, Barbara Minto’s The Minto Pyramid Principle, Logic in Writing, Thinking and Problem Solving I have a love/hate relationship with this very expensive book (I paid about $50 for a used copy) that I purchased back in 2008/09. Minto’s genius is in her simplicity and elegance—it is also very linear, so focus is rarely a problem when using her methods. Her schema is focused on a consultant-client relationship, so you may want to skip or check if google has parts you can review online.

My father-in-law shared a column from an investment newsletter several years ago that I’ve also used intermittently: everyday write down “10 ideas”—this is sort of a riff on free writing, but the idea is to get 10 new ideas on paper everyday—unedited. It gets hard after about five or six consecutive days. I’ll typically go three or four days in a row and take a few weeks off. I’ve ideas for three different weapons platforms that came from this method.

Terry Barnhart’s Critical Question Mapping [see Terry's excellent Creating a Lean R&D Enterprise]  is a good place to approach problems from the perspective of what/which questions must be answered. Mark (aka: “Zen”) has used with students and Fred Leland uses in training law enforcement. We used it a couple of years ago to help establish a big project I’m working on.

Lastly, two tools I use everyday are a small Moleskin notebook and my iPhone camera. Anytime I’ve an idea/insight I’ll copy into my notebook and assign a suspense date to “running it to ground,” and this includes copying marginalia and/or quotes from a book I’m reading—particularly for adjacent ideas as a prompt to come back. Also, I’m a big fan of using my smartphone to photograph magazine articles, shapes or designs that may have applicability to something that interests me. For aid in memory, I’ve found Evernote.com to be very useful, too.

What tools do you use to boost your creativity?

Share

Boyd and Beyond 2014 Agenda

Tuesday, September 9th, 2014

[by J. Scott Shipman]

This is the agenda for Boyd and Beyond 2014:

Agenda-Pic

**

In case you’ve not seen on Facebook or LinkedIn:

Attached is the agenda for Boyd and Beyond 2014. Dave Lyle, a first time speaker, will be our lead-off for Friday morning with War and Metaphor—-unless Robert Coram or Tom Christie show up–Robert is 50/50 and Tom has been invited.
.
Dave Diehl may have to miss this year and he’s scheduled for 30 minutes on Saturday afternoon. I’d like to fill that 30 minutes—if we can’t, I’ll moveTerry to that slot and we’ll wrap up a bit earlier.

If you have not RSVP’d, please do.

Many will notice Dean Lenane was given 90 minutes–he spoke at the West Coast event earlier this year, and plans to deliver a variation on the theme. The request made sense—and we’ve not seen Dean a few years.

New speakers include: Joseph M Bradley (with OODA and Systems Theory), J.C. Herz (with Boyd and Crossfit), Daniel Grazier (Manoeuvre Warfare–yeah, I spelled that right), Robert Thomas (with a little Boyd-FA Hayek magic), Bill Bon (Boyd and the Bargaining Table), Robert L. Cantrell(Boyd’s Philosophy in the Natural World), and our Stan Coerr (with the enigmatic title: Hell In a Very Large Place).

Terry Barnhart, Michael Moore, Gahlord Dewald, Chip Pearson (welcome back!), and Mark Hart always reliable are returning.

On time: speakers, last year we wandered a bit more than normal. We’ve never been “clock watchers” at these events, but unless the audience is driving you over your limit (which we encourage and enjoy), please try to keep on schedule.

We’re fortunate to have a robust schedule, and Stan and I look forward to seeing everyone. If you’ve not already RSVP’d, please do—I’m keeping a pretty good count.

Share

Book Recommendation: Ancient Religions, Modern Politics

Wednesday, August 27th, 2014

[by J. Scott Shipman]

ancient religion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ancient Religions, Modern Politics, The Islamic Case in Comparative Perspective, by Michael Cook

Charles Cameron recently had a post here at Zenpundit, Which is mightier, the pen or the sword?  Frequent commenter T. Greer recommended this volume in the comment section and I ordered immediately. My copy arrived this morning and I had some quiet time and a bit of commuting time to devote to Cook’s introduction and the first few chapters. This is a very good treatment of roots of Islam and how those roots affect today’s political climate. Cook divides the book into three large parts: Identity, Values, and Fundamentalism. The comparative element is his use of Hinduism and Latin American Catholicism when compared in scope and influence to Islam.

Here are a couple of good pull quotes from the Preface:

I should add some cautions about what the book does not do. First though it has a lot to say about the pre-modern world, it does not provide an account of that world for its own sake, and anyone who read the book as if it did would be likely to come away with a seriously distorted picture. This is perhaps particularly so in the Islamic case—and for two reasons. One is that, to put it bluntly, Islamic civilization died quite some time ago, unlike Islam which is very much alive; we will thus be concerned with the wider civilization only when it is relevant to features of the enduring religious heritage. (emphasis added)

Cook’s emphasis on shared identity is one of the best and most cogent descriptions I’ve found:

“…collective identity, particularly those that really matter to people—so much so that they may be willing to die for them. Identities of this kind, like values, can and do change, but they are not, as academic rhetoric would sometimes have it, in constant flux. The reason is simple; like shared currencies, shared identities are the basis of claims that people can make on each other, and without a degree of stability such an identity would be as useless as a hyperinflated currency. So it is not surprising that in the real world collective identities, though not immutable, often prove robust and recalcitrant, at times disconcertingly so.”

In the same comment thread where T. Greer recommended this Ancient Religions, Charles called Cook’s work his opus. Based on the few hours I’ve spent with the volume and the marginalia, Charles was characteristically “spot-on.”

Published in March of this year, this is a new and important title. With any luck, I’ll complete the book and do a more proper review sometime soon.

Share

The Wire, with a hat-tip to John Boyd

Thursday, July 10th, 2014

[ by Charles Cameron -- with thanks to Netflix and David Simon, and the same with Don Vandergriff, Secretary Gates and Boyd himself ]
.

In the second season of The Wire aka “the Great American Novel for Television“, first episode, Ebb Tide, Detective Roland Pryzbylewski talks about his future in a discussion with his father-in-law, Major Valchek. The conversation goes (emphatically, on the Major’s side) like this:

Valchek: What do I think? I think you’re gonna take the Sergeant’s Exam next month. And because I have Andy Krawczyk’s ear and because he has City Hall’s ear you’re gonna make Sergeant. Then you’re gonna come out here to the Southeast where, because I’m your father-in-law you’re gonna be assigned a daytime shift in a quiet sector. Then you’re gonna take the Lieutenant’s Exam where you’ll also score high.

Pryzbylewski: I don’t want to make rank. I want to work cases. Good cases.

Valchek: Roland. Listen to me. You did good with the drug thing. You buckled down, you did the work. And except for that thing with the Grand Jury you helped take some of the stink off yourself. Now if you’ll just shut up and listen to me you might actually have a career in this department.

**

That’s pure Boyd, dramatized, if I’m not mistaken. I’d just reread Boyd’s speech in an older post from Don Vandergriff, SecDef talks about Boyd’s “To Be or To Do” speech, and of course I know that speech is a favorite of Scott‘s, so the impact of Det. Pryzbylewski’s predicament was pretty strong.

John Boyd:

Tiger, one day you will come to a fork in the road and you’re going to have to make a decision about which direction you want to go. He raised his hand and pointed. “If you go that way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good assignments.” Then Boyd raised his other hand and pointed in another direction. “Or you can go that way and you can do something- something for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself. If you decide you want to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you won’t have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference. To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That’s when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?

There’s a choice, sure. But on another level, is there really any choice?

Share

A Low Visibility Force Multiplier – a recommendation

Thursday, June 5th, 2014

[by J. Scott Shipman]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Low Visibility Force Multiplier, Assessing China’s Cruise Missile Ambitions, Dennis M. Gormley, Andrew S. Erickson, Jingdong Yuan

Through an interesting turn of events I was able to attend an event at the Center for a New American Security today where Dennis Gormley and Andrew Erickson discussed their new book, A Low Visibility Force Multiplier. A colleague with CIMSEC posted a link to a Wendell Minnick story in Defense News which led to the National Defense University pdf. I managed to read a large chunk last night/this morning—for a document that was written using open sources, the authors make a pretty compelling case that China’s Anti-ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM), the so-called “carrier killer” isn’t the only missile in the PLAN arsenal U.S. Navy planners need to factor in.

From the Executive Summary:

Assessment

China has invested considerable resources both in acquiring foreign cruise missiles and technology and in developing its own indigenous cruise missile capabilities. These efforts are bearing fruit in the form of relatively advanced ASCMs and LACMs deployed on a wide range of older and modern air, ground, surface-ship, and sub-surface platforms.(9) To realize the full benefits, China will need additional investments in all the relevant enabling technologies and systems required to optimize cruise missile performance.(10) Shortcomings remain in intelligence support, command and control, platform stealth and survivability, and postattack damage assessment, all of which are critical to mission effectiveness.

ASCMs and LACMs have significantly improved PLA combat capabilities and are key components in Chinese efforts to develop A2/AD capabilities that increase the costs and risks for U.S. forces operating near China, including in a Taiwan contingency. China plans to employ cruise missiles in ways that exploit synergies with other strike systems, including using cruise missiles to degrade air defenses and command and control facilities to enable follow-on air strikes. Defenses and other responses to PRC cruise missile capabilities exist, but will require greater attention and a focused effort to develop technical countermeasures and effective operational responses.

The authors speculate that China has done the calculus and determined they can’t match us (or perhaps have no desire) in platforms, but rather are choosing a lower cost alternative: omassive missile barrages—so massive ship defense systems are overwhelmed. Numbers matter; as the great WayneP. Hughes, Jr. (CAPT, USN, Ret) points out in his seminal Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat, naval warfare is attrition warfare. With that in mind, this paragraph illustrates the gravity (emphasis added):

Cruise Missile Ratios

DOD transformation assumes that by shaping the nature of military competition in U.S. favor, or “overmatch,” rivals will continually lag in a demanding security environment. What if this is a false assumption? In other words, China may be choosing to com- pete in a traditional or conventional maritime environment in which transformed U.S. forces are structured and equipped in a significantly different way. As analyst Mark Stokes has reported, some Chinese believe that, due to the low cost of developing, deploying, and maintaining LACMs, cruise missiles possess a 9:1 cost advantage over the expense of defending against them. (103) The far more important—and difficult to estimate—ratio is that of PLA ASCMs to U.S. Navy defense systems. Numbers alone will not determine effectiveness; concept of operations and ability to employ cruise missiles effectively in actual operational conditions will be the true determinants of capability. Even without precise calculations, however, it appears that China’s increasing ASCM inventory has in- creasing potential to saturate U.S. Navy defenses. This is clearly the goal of China’s much heavier emphasis on cruise missiles, and it appears to be informed by an assumption that quantity can defeat quality. Saturation is an obvious tactic for China to use based on its capabilities and emphasis on defensive systems. PLAN ASCM weapon training, production, and delivery platform modernization continues to progress rapidly. Scenarios involving hostile engagement between PLAN and U.S. CSG forces could be quite costly to the latter due to the sheer volume of potential ASCM saturation attacks.

Dr. Erickson pointed out in today’s meeting that the Mark Stokes estimate may be an overstatement, but certainly illustrative of economics involved.

This is an important contribution and the challenges facing our Navy and Allies in the South China Sea/East China Sea lead me to conclude with hope that policy makers read and heed.

Strongest recommendation.

Share

Switch to our mobile site