My instant impression on seeing Armano’s visual was a reminder from Western philosophy and Eastern religion:
“We are what we frequently do” – Aristotle
“What we think, we become” – Buddha
The second impression from the graphic was it’s simultaneous representation as both a feedback loop and a hierarchy. As a hierarchy, I’m not certain I would put “what we say” as a more fundamental tier than “what we do” as Armano did. Actions would appear to be less subjective as events occuring in time and space than words but words moreso than the perceptions of others which we can neither control nor reliably audit, yet they very much influence us, as Armano suggests.
Compare the flow of information/action in Armano’s pyramidical graphic with John Boyd’s OODA Loop:
Boyd’s conception is not hierarchical or sequential, though many people view OODA as a deliberative step by step process, running through it in such a manner instead would slow the cycle considerably. Armano’s consideration of the perceptions of others would be important to Boyd as “outside information” and “unfolding interaction with environment”. It would address the mental and moral levels of conflict and competition:
- Mental (against individuals and groups): surprise, deception, shock, and ambiguity
- Moral (against groups): menace, uncertainty and mistrust, resulting in disintegration of cohesion and the moral fragmentation of the opponent into many non-cooperative centers of gravity, which pumps up friction.
It would also measure our ability to attract support from or positively influence third parties or allies.
Interested in any thoughts the readership might have on the comparison or from any of my numerous co-authors….