OODA Loop

The OODA loop is not a reasoning methodology for difficult problems persay.

I would distill the idea behind the OODA loop as leveraging small quick actions that create larger reactions in your opponent. Essentially, it's an attempt to make an opponent commit to an action that you can later make sub-optimal by reacting faster.

As an example, let's say there are two competitors in fashion:

Competitor (A) is a small nibble startup. They produce 10x units per month, can change what they make each month, and produce at one unit of cost.

Competitor (B) is a large copy-cat operation. They follow the trends set by the little guys, they produce 1000x units per month, but they commit to what they make for six months at a time (but at a quarter the cost).

If competitor (A) and (B) both make black clothing forever, (A) will get crushed. But, if (A) can change the industry trend faster than (B) can change production, then (A) will win. Example, black is the it clothing, (B) is on track to make 1000x units every month for six months. (A) being a trend setter sees this and makes "brown" the new trend. (B) reacts to this by ordering their next production line to be "brown". Now they are committed to making black clothes for a few more months and then "brown" clothes for 6 months. (A) sets the trend again to "blue" clothes. (A) has now won, (B) will make "brown" clothes for 6 months and at a time after nobody wants them. All the "brown" clothes made by (B) will be behind the trend and all wasted.

In short, if I can make you react to me with an optimal move, if I can then change the game faster than you can react to then make what was your previously optimal move now sub-optimal, I can win (even if on paper you may have the better specs).

Another example, let's say two people are playing chess, but one side has a big material advantage (like more pieces, more queens, or they are super-good). Though, the side with the material advantage has to announce their next move and commit to it while the other is free to make whatever move they want on their turn. While one side has the material advantage, the other side that can adjust and turn what was a good move into a horrible move. For example, the advantaged side says "in response to your bishop going to B2, I'm moving my knight to C3, and my next move will be to move my queen to D5". The idea behind the OODA loop is the orient step is seeing how the knight and queen are moving. You then decide on a course of action, namely to move your bishop to threaten D5. Dutifully the advantaged side moves their queen to D5, your next move is to take out their queen with a bishop.

So, in the game theory, while you might be able to respond better, if my counter response is faster, than I can turn your better response into a bad move simple by changing the situation faster than you can react.

Another example would be football and running at a linebacker. If moving one space to the right causes the line backer to move two spaces, then all I need to do is move one space to the right and then move to the left. The OODA loop comes in because maybe the line backer does not move. In this case I just need to move to the right twice more and the line back won't be able to move faster enough. No matter what the line back does, because I can move faster than they can change their direction, I can game it to make sure whatever they do will be sub-optimal in the end.

(small apology for the overly verbose response, I do enjoy game theory and posing these examples)

How is it a useful metaphor? I don't understand how you can use it to extrapolate from a situation in which you vastly outmatch an opponent to one of equals or you being outmatched. It seems too general and abstract to be worth more than "that's neat" status.

Other HN responders seem to be using it to mean a variety of different concepts including tempo, having superior heuristics built via prior observation or simply "thinking then acting".