Intelligence Analysis Challenges and Vulnerabilities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Intelligence Analysis Challenges and Vulnerabilities Krizana Heuerb Trent, et al.c Hutchins, et al.d Johnsone Prematurely Formed The Vividness Inappropriate High Cognitive Secrecy versus Views Criterion Mental Set Workload Efficacy Tradeoff Willful Disregard of Absence of Evidence Environmental Potential for Error Focus on Current New Evidence Pressure Production Lack of Empathy Base-Rate Fallacy Fixation Time Pressure Time Constraints Ethnocentrism & Mirror- Oversensitivity to Recognition of Coping with Confirmation Bias, Imaging Consistency Relevant Data Uncertainty Norms, and Taboos Ignorance Anchoring Trust Data Overload Analytic Identity Rational-Actor Assessing Probability Experience Synthesizing Production-based Hypothesis or Denial of of a Scenario viewed as Multiple Sources Rewards and Rationality Expertise of Information Incentives Proportionality Bias Availability Rule Learning Insufficient Tools Analytic Training Defensive Avoidance & Similarity of Cause Tool Organizational Perception of Wishful Thinking and Effect Understanding Context “Tradecraft” Versus Scientific Conservatism in Internal vs. External Sustained Complex Human Methodology Probability Estimation Causes of Behavior Attention Judgments Presumption that Persistence of Support for One Impressions Based on Hypothesis Disconfirms Discredited Evidence Others Best-Case Analysis or Overestimating Our Worst-Case Analysis Own Importance Image and Self-Image Illusory Correlation Overconfidence in Expression of Subjective Estimates Uncertainty Inappropriate Bias Favoring Analogies & Superficial Perception of Lessons from History Centralized Direction Evoked-Set Reasoning Coping with Evidence of Uncertain Accuracy Excessive Secrecy Presumption of Unitary Bias in Favor of Action by Organizations Causal Explanations & Organizational Parochialism Note. From When is Analysis Sufficient: A Study of How Professional Analysts Judge Rigor by D. Zelik, 2007. aAdapted from Intelligence Essentials for Everyone by L. Krizan, 1999. bAdapted from Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, by R. J. Heuer, 1999. cAdapted form “Challenges for Cognition in Intelligence Analysis,” S. A. Trent, et al., in press, Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making. dAdapted from “What Makes Intelligence Analysis Difficult? A Cognitive Task Analysis of Intelligence Analysts,” S. G. Hutchins, et al., 2006, in P. L. Pirolli (Ed.) Assisting People to Become Independent Learners in the Analysis of Intelligence. eAdapted from Analytic Culture in the US Intelligence Community: An Ethnographic Study, by R. Johnson, 2005..

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Great Awakening 2020: the Neoliberal Wellness Journey Down the Rabbit Hole
California State University, San Bernardino CSUSB ScholarWorks Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations Office of aduateGr Studies 8-2021 GREAT AWAKENING 2020: THE NEOLIBERAL WELLNESS JOURNEY DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE Melissa Ann McLaughlin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation McLaughlin, Melissa Ann, "GREAT AWAKENING 2020: THE NEOLIBERAL WELLNESS JOURNEY DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE" (2021). Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations. 1277. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/1277 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Office of aduateGr Studies at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GREAT AWAKENING 2020 THE NEOLIBERAL WELLNESS JOURNEY DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Social Sciences and Globalization by Melissa McLaughlin August 2021 GREAT AWAKENING 2020 THE NEOLIBERAL WELLNESS JOURNEY DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino by Melissa McLaughlin August 2021 Approved by: Kevin Grisham, Committee Chair, Geography Hareem Khan, Anthropology © 2021 Melissa McLaughlin ABSTRACT 2020 was a good year for conspiracy theory. From COVID denialism to QAnon, the usual cast of conspiracy influencers was joined by mommy bloggers, yoga teachers, and social media opportunists to spread disinformation and sow doubt in the American psyche across the vast network of the internet.
[Show full text]
Cognitive Science
Have a question? ASK THE BRAINS Send it to [email protected] None of the above should one explaining the same thing indicate that all conspiracy repeatedly. It all makes sense, theories are false. Some may so you say, “Yes, yes, got it.” Why do indeed turn out to be true. But reviewing an explanation some people The point is that some indi- is not the same as being able believe in viduals may have a tendency to explain something yourself. to find such theories attrac- The flaw in rereading— conspiracy tive. The crux of the matter is failing to know if you have theories? that conspiracists are not real- learned the material—points —Thea Buckley, India ly sure what the true explana- to our first good study tech- tion of an event is—they are nique: self-testing. Self-testing simply certain that the “offi- may involve flash cards, it may cial story” is a cover-up. mean answering questions at Christopher French, a profes- will focus on such inconsis- the back of a book chapter or sor of psychology at Goldsmiths, tencies to bolster their claims. What are the it may be fielding questions University of London, explains: “Proportionality bias,” best and worst lobbed by a study buddy. our innate tendency to assume ways to prepare There are two main bene- Although conspiracy beliefs that big events have big causes, for an exam? fits to self-testing. First, in can occasionally be based on may also explain our tendency —Lola Irele, London contrast to rereading, self-test- a rational analysis of the evi- to accept conspiracies.
[Show full text]
Critical Thinking and Practical Skills
Information Literacy: critical thinking and practical skills TERESA SCHMIDT MERCER PUBLIC LIBRARY SEPTEMBER 18, 2020 Week 2 BUT WHY DO THEY DO IT? ▪ Listen respectfully, without interrupting. ▪ Listen actively and with an ear to understanding others' views. ▪ Criticize ideas, not individuals. Ground Rules ▪ Commit to learning, not debating. ▪ Avoid blame, speculation, and inflammatory language. ▪ Allow everyone the chance to speak. ▪ Avoid assumptions about any member of the class or generalizations about social groups. ▪ Do not ask individuals to speak for their (perceived) social group. ▪If you don’t want to appear in the recording, please turn off your video feed before you ask a question. University of Michigan Center for Research on Learning & Teaching, https://crlt.umich.edu/publinks/generalguidelines Questions & Comments NOTES FROM LAST WEEK TikTok POLITICAL FOOTBALL OR SECURITY RISK? Misinformation in Mainstream Media CDA, section 230: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Take-aways from these examples… 1. Mainstream media are not perfect! 2. Suing someone is not proof of their guilt. 3. Mainstream media can, in fact, serve to increase the dissemination of fake news. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23808985.2020.1759443 Psychology of Misinformation HOW DOES OUR PSYCHOLOGY WORK AGAINST US? Cognitive Biases “A collection of faulty ways of thinking that are hardwired into the human brain.”
[Show full text]
Prospects for Utilitarian Decision Analysis
Prospects for utilitarian decision analysis Jonathan Baron* Department of Psychology University of Pennsylvania Abstract Decision analysis evaluates options in terms of their expected utility, the expected amount of good. Many regulatory decisions require estimates of utility, which is not the same as monetary outcomes or other objectively measurable quantities. I review some of the problems of utility measurement for con- sequences (hence “utilitarian”) and suggest possible solutions. Contingent valuation (CV), a widely used method for obtaining money equivalents, is usually insensitive to the quantity of the good being evalu- ated, but this problem might be avoided by using per-unit pricing and/or by requiring responses on both attributes (money and the good in question). Valuation of consequences can also be distorted by provision of information about how the conse- quences are achieved. I report a study showing how valuation can also be improved by stripping away information other than the consequences of interest; most subjects did not think that removal of the extra information was unfair. Conjoint analysis, another method in which respondents rate objects that vary in different attributes such as cost and beneﬁt, seems promising because it is often sensitive to quantity. I report a study sug- gesting that it can suffer from the problem that people limit their attention to a few attributes, possibly even one. I conclude with a discussion of the role of utility measurement in regulation. Keywords: contingent valuation, public goods, conjoint analysis, biases, regulation. *This paper is an extended version of a presentation at a conference on “New ideas for risk regulation,” at Resouces for the Future, Washington, DC, June 22–23, 2009.) Email: [email protected].
[Show full text]
Deterrence Now
Deterrence Now Patrick M. Morgan University of California, Irvine /36768B:DDC, 534B697 B95B7 .34B69727BCD0315D3D,,C475DDD:7 .34B697.B7D7BC8C7333473DCambridge Books:DDC, Online 534B697 © Cambridge B95B7D7BC University :DDC,6 Press, B9 2009.1 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, United Kingdom Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521822572 © Patrick M. Morgan 2003 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published in print format 2003 isbn-13ISBN-13 978-0-511-49157-33 OCeISBN isbn-13ISBN-13 978-0-521-82257-22 hardback isbn-10ISBN-10 0-521-82257-22 hardback isbn-13ISBN-13 978-0-521-52969-33 paperback isbn-10ISBN-10 0-521-52969-77 paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. /36768B:DDC, 534B697 B95B7 .34B69727BCD0315D3D,,C475DDD:7 .34B697.B7D7BC8C7333473DCambridge Books:DDC, Online 534B697 © Cambridge B95B7D7BC University :DDC,6 Press, B9 2009.1 Deterrence Now Patrick Morgan’s authoritative study revisits the place of deterrence after the Cold War. By assessing and questioning the state of modern deterrence theory, particularly under conditions of nuclear prolifer- ation, Morgan argues that there are basic ﬂaws in the design of the theory that ultimately limit its utility.
[Show full text]
The Role of Evidence in Conspiracy Theories
THE ROLE OF EVIDENCE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES Omar El Attal JUNE 14, 2021 Master THESIS Philosophy of contemporary challenges (799402-M-13) Supervisor: Dr. Hans Dooremalen Second reader: Dr. Michael Vlerick Words: 14114 U1274257/ Anr. 423961 [email protected] Tilburg University Department of Philosophy Table of contents 1.Introduction ................................................................................................... 3 2.Conspiracies and evidence......................................................................... 5 3.What counts as evidence in conspiracy theories? .................................11 4.Biases ..........................................................................................................19 5.The Ethics of Belief ....................................................................................27 6.What to do about conspiracy theories? ...................................................34 Listing the conclusions .................................................................................41 References .....................................................................................................43 1 Abstract This paper discusses the role of evidence in conspiracy theories. It will answer the question: What exactly is the role evidence plays in constructing and believing conspiracy theories? Evidence is important to conspiracy theorists but the way they select and deal with evidence is often faulty. The nature of conspiracy theories and the way conspiracy theorists
[Show full text]
When Is Analysis Sufficient? a Study of How Professional Intelligence
WHEN IS ANALYSIS SUFFICIENT? A STUDY OF HOW PROFESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS JUDGE RIGOR A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Daniel J. Zelik, B.S. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2007 Master’s Examination Committee: Approved by: Dr. David D. Woods, Advisor _________________________________ Dr. Emily S. Patterson Advisor Graduate Program in Industrial and Systems Engineering Copyright © by Daniel J. Zelik 2007 ABSTRACT The proliferation of data accessibility has exacerbated the risk of shallowness in information analysis, making it increasingly difficult to tell when analysis is sufficient for making decisions or changing plans, even as it becomes increasingly easy to find seemingly relevant data. In addressing the risk of shallow analysis, the concept of rigor emerges as an approach for coping with this fundamental uncertainty—motivating the need to better define and understand analytical rigor. The concept of rigor is explored in this thesis through a study that asks how professional analysts decide when there is sufficient rigor in an analytic process. Nine professional intelligence analysts participated in a scenario walkthrough in which they critiqued the analysis processes of two junior analysts—one representing a high- rigor analysis process and the other a low-rigor process. In the study, participants assumed the role of analyst supervisor, deciding if these analyses were of sufficient rigor to send to a decision maker—a fundamental judgment task characterized as the Supervisor's Dilemma. This study design validated and refined the Elicitation by Critiquing methodology, also developing the Liquified Natural Gas Scenario, based on security issues that challenge safety analyses, as a cognitive case for exploring themes in information analysis.
[Show full text]
Conspiracy Theories in Contemporary Culture
Measurement Issues and the Role of Cognitive Biases in Conspiracist Ideation Robert A. Brotherton Department of Psychology Goldsmiths, University of London A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Goldsmiths, University of London in October 2013 Statement of Originality This thesis represents my own original work towards this research degree and contains no material which has been previously submitted for a degree at this University or any other institution, except where due acknowledgement is made. Robert A. Brotherton 2 Acknowledgements My sincerest thanks go to everyone who helped make this thesis what it is: To my supervisors Chris French (not only the best mentor I could hope for, but a good friend as well), Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic (for guiding the first half of this research), and Alan Pickering (for coming on board later, but having no less input for it). To Pam Heaton and Elisabeth Hill for deciding that this work might be worth funding, and to the Economic and Social Research council for agreeing. To Karen Douglas, who is responsible for my interest in the psychology of conspiracy theories in the first place. To Mark Williams, James Moore, Adrian Furnham, Paul Rogers, Patrick Leman, Rob Teszka, and various peer-reviewers for valuable help, advice, and constructive criticism. Most of all, for unending support and encouragement, to my parents, Ann and Bob, and my partner Lindsay. And, last but not least, to everyone who participated in this research – particularly those who suspected me of being a government shill. This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number ES/I90249X] 3 Related Publications Some of the work contained within this dissertation has appeared in the following publications.
[Show full text]
Ley Lines | Balles Award
Science Literacy Paradox | Fate | Faith vs. Fact | Conspiracy Theories | Ley Lines | Balles Award the Magazine for Science and Reason Vol. 40 No. 5 | September/October 2016 ISSUES IN SCIENCE SPECIAL AND SKEPTICISM ANNIVERSARY Neil deGrasse TYSON Bill NYE EDITION Steven NOVELLA Lawrence M. KRAUSS Daniel DENNETT Richard WISEMAN Scott O. LILIENFELD Sharon HILL David J. HELFAND Edzard ERNST Martin BRIDGSTOCK INTRODUCTORY PRICE U.S. and Canada $5.99 Published by the Center for Inquiry in association with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Robyn Blumner, CEO Massimo Polidoro, Research Fellow Bar ry Karr, Ex ec u tive Di rect or Benjamin Radford, Research Fellow Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow Richard Wiseman, Research Fellow ISSUES IN SCIENCE www.csicop.org and SKEPTICISM Fellows 40th Anniversary Celebration James E. Al cock*, psy chol o gist, York Univ., Tor on to Mur ray Gell-Mann, pro fes sor of phys ics, San ta Fe In sti tute; Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA Mar cia An gell, MD, former ed i tor-in-chief, No bel lau re ate Lor en Pan kratz, psy chol o gist, Or e gon Health New Eng land Jour nal of Med i cine Thom as Gi lov ich, psy chol o gist, Cor nell Univ. Sci en ces Univ. Kimball Atwood IV, MD, physician; author; Newton, MA David H. Gorski, cancer surgeon and re searcher at Barbara Robert L. Park, professor of physics, Univ. of Maryland Steph en Bar rett, MD, psy chi a trist; au thor; con sum er ad vo cate, Ann Kar manos Cancer Institute and chief of breast surgery Jay M.
[Show full text]
Glossary of Behavioural Biases
Glossary of Behavioural Biases Actor-Observer Bias Overemphasizing the infuence of personality rather than the situation in explaining the behaviour of others Ambiguity Effect Avoiding options for which missing information makes the probability seem unknown Anchoring Te decision-making process relies too heavily on the frst piece of information acquired Anthropic Bias Biased evidence as a result of observation selection efects Anthropomorphism Characterizing animals, objects and abstract concepts as possessing human-like traits, emotions and intentions Attentional Bias Recurring thoughts afecting perception Authority Bias Attributing greater accuracy to the opinion of an authority fgure Automation Bias Depending excessively on automated systems Availability Cascade Collective beliefs becoming more plausible by virtue of repetition Availability Heuristic Overestimating the likelihood of events with greater avail- ability in memory Backfre Effect Reaction to disconfrming evidence by strengthening prior pre- vious beliefs Bandwagon Effect Doing or believing things that others do or believe Barnum Effect See Forer Efect © Te Editor(s) (if applicable) and Te Author(s) 2017 163 I. A. Moosa and V. Ramiah, Te Financial Consequences of Behavioural Biases, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69389-7 164 Glossary of Behavioural Biases Base Rate Fallacy Ignoring general information, choosing instead to focus on specifc information Base Rate Neglect See Base Rate Fallacy Belief Bias Te logical strength of an argument is biased by the believability of
[Show full text]
Expert Panel Meeting on Advancing Medical Decision Making Final Report October 2015
Expert Panel Meeting on Advancing Medical Decision Making Final Report October 2015 Katherine Treiman, PhD, MPH, Tammeka Swinson Evans, MOP, and Laura Wagner, MPH RTI International DISCLAIMER All statements, findings and conclusions in this publication are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) or its Board of Governors. This publication was developed through a contract to support PCORI’s work and is being made available free of charge for the information of the scientific community and general public as part of PCORI’s ongoing research programs. Questions or comments may be sent to PCORI at [email protected] or by mail to 1828 L Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20036. CONTENTS Section Page INTRODUCTION 1 Background........................................................................................................ 1 Introduction and Meeting Goals ............................................................................ 1 Session 1: Decisions In and Out of Health 3 Overview of Presentations.................................................................................... 3 Presentation 1: Normative, Descriptive, and Prescriptive Models of Decision Making (Jonathan Baron) ....................................................... 3 Presentation 2: Fuzzy Trace Theory (FTT): Explaining and Predicting Medical Decision Making Across the Lifespan (Valerie Reyna) ................... 5 Presentation 3: Psychology of Number Processing in Decisions
[Show full text]
The London School of Economics and Political Science Conspiracy
The London School of Economics and Political Science Conspiracy Theory Beliefs and Worldviews: A Mixed-methods Approach Exploring the Psychology of Monologicality, Dialogicality and Belief Development. Matthew S. Hall A thesis submitted to the Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science of the London School of Economics and Political Science for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, March 2020. Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 64017 words. Statement of co-authored work I confirm that Chapter 2 was jointly co-authored with Professor Bradley Franks, Professor Adrian Bangerter, Professor Martin Bauer and Mr Mark Noort. My primary supervisor, Professor Bradley Franks, was the primary author. I contributed 85% of the data collection and 25% of the analysis. I confirm that Chapter 3 was jointly co-authored with Professor Bradley Franks and Professor Martin Bauer. I was the primary author and contributed 90% of the work.
[Show full text]