Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Psychology of Intelligence Analysis (2007)

cia.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 20 posts

Re: Psychology of Intelligence Analysis (2007)

#11

Post by for_i_in_range »

Thanks for submitting. Just ordered physical book on Amazon.

I’d like to share a tangential thought in case others have noticed the same. One thing I’ve found odd with the CIA and “Intelligence” community is they seem to use the terms “Information” and “Intelligence” interchangeably. Labeling their Information as Intelligence, I would think introduces cognitive bias. Perhaps Authority Bias or another.

Going with the DIKW paradigm:

- Data

- Information (The symbols and words we assign to the Data)

- Knowledge (Which I’ll define as a storage of Information with Metainformation attached to it. Kind of like a computer filesystem. The actual file is Information and has Metainfo like Source, Timestamp, filetype, and other contextual properties which is useful for processing and thinking about during decision-making.

- Wisdom (Which I’ll defined as the process of consciously running Knowledge through your Mind and Emotions and Third-party Cognitive Fallacy Checklists) and then drawing a Conclusion.

When they say “Intelligence-gathering”, really they mean “Information-gathering.”

Long story, short: if I ran the CIA, I’d change the name to “Central Information Processing Agency”

Re: Psychology of Intelligence Analysis (2007)

#12

Post by alexpetralia »

for_i_in_range wrote: post #11

Thanks for submitting. Just ordered physical book on Amazon. I’d like to share a tangential thought in case others have noticed the same. One thing I’ve found odd with the CIA and “Intelligence” community is they seem to use the terms “Information” and “Intelligence” interchangeably. Labeling their Information as Intelligence, I would think introduces cognitive bias. Perhaps Authority Bias or another. Going with the…

How I've seen this structured elsewhere:

- Noise (illegible)

- Data (legible symbols)

- Information (relevant, salient data)

- Knowledge (integrated, coherent, true information) - "a justified, true belief"

- Understanding (an anticipatory, predictive, analytical model)

- Wisdom (an autoregressive, self-awareness like term in the predictive model)

Re: Psychology of Intelligence Analysis (2007)

#13

Post by boomboomsubban »

okokok___ wrote: post #6

This seems like it would be an advantage if other people weren't aware of this information. I wonder why they decided to publish it publicly like this.

It's not like the information is based on his own private research, all of the information would already be available to anyone who wants it. Even then, they waited twenty years before publicly publishing the book (assuming the 1999 publishing date is correct.)

Re: Psychology of Intelligence Analysis (2007)

#14

Post by hedgehog »

Animats wrote: post #7

That's very useful. This should be routinely taught in college, if not in high school.

I'll argue parts of it as early as kids have language, along with some statistics. Structured thought, deduction from observations, reasoning about probability, all are foundational and would help support other coursework (not necessarily sacrifice other topics).

Re: Psychology of Intelligence Analysis (2007)

#15

Post by okokok___ »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #13
okokok___ wrote: post #6

This seems like it would be an advantage if other people weren't aware of this information. I wonder why they decided to publish it publicly like this.

It's not like the information is based on his own private research, all of the information would already be available to anyone who wants it. Even then, they waited twenty years before publicly publishing the book (assuming the 1999 publishing date is correct.)

Oh, didn't see the publish date. thanks!

Re: Psychology of Intelligence Analysis (2007)

#16

Post by warlog »

alexpetralia wrote: post #12
for_i_in_range wrote: post #11

Thanks for submitting. Just ordered physical book on Amazon. I’d like to share a tangential thought in case others have noticed the same. One thing I’ve found odd with the CIA and “Intelligence” community is they seem to use the terms “Information” and “Intelligence” interchangeably. Labeling their Information as Intelligence, I would think introduces cognitive bias. Perhaps Authority Bias or another. Going with the…

How I've seen this structured elsewhere: - Noise (illegible) - Data (legible symbols) - Information (relevant, salient data) - Knowledge (integrated, coherent, true information) - "a justified, true belief" - Understanding (an anticipatory, predictive, analytical model) - Wisdom (an autoregressive, self-awareness like term in the predictive model)

interesting.

I would put data first, with signal and noise components determined second. Although this probably some subset of the information in the structure you present?

Re: Psychology of Intelligence Analysis (2007)

#17

Post by tschiller »

If you're interested in trying the analysis of competing hypotheses technique (ACH) from book, I maintain an open-source implementation here: https://www.opensynthesis.org/

Our wiki on GitHub also has related reading, including guides from other countries: https://github.com/twschiller/open-synthesis/wiki/Reading-Li...

Re: Psychology of Intelligence Analysis (2007)

#18

Post by [deleted] »

Jugurtha wrote: post #10

The book " Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis " by the same author is more recent and goes into details and applications. They go over many biases and attentional phenomena, tools to prevent or mitigate, visualization techniques to address problems (timelines, etc.) with several examples. It also goes into explaining the context that practitioners evolve in a context where information can be sca…

[deleted]

Re: Psychology of Intelligence Analysis (2007)

#19

Post by for_i_in_range »

warlog wrote: post #16
alexpetralia wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How I've seen this structured elsewhere: - Noise (illegible) - Data (legible symbols) - Information (relevant, salient data) - Knowledge (integrated, coherent, true information) - "a justified, true belief" - Understanding (an anticipatory, predictive, analytical model) - Wisdom (an autoregressive, self-awareness like term in the predictive model)

interesting. I would put data first, with signal and noise components determined second. Although this probably some subset of the information in the structure you present?

I define Data as “Raw External Universe Matter/Energy/Forces”. Think Photons you see or Electromagnetic Waves of a speeding train you hear.

Our Senses (Skin, Tongue, Ears, Eyes, Nose) are “Interpreters” which Process the External data and then convert them to Symbols (“Information”).

Post reply on HN