Think Tank Meeting 5 Jan 2006
Summary:
Prior to the 05JAN2006 Think Tank meeting, members reviewed two articles: “Combating Cognitive Biases in Information Retrieval” by Rafael Alonso, and Hua Li and “Observations on ‘Cognitive Factors in Design’” by Thomas T. Hewitt. The group discussed the method by which the Anti-Bias Mechanism (ABM) (in the former article) worked to develop an alternative query in Internet searches conducted by analysts. The group agreed that a “Google” styled evaluation of information, found to be commonly relevant by other analysts (unions), has some utility. However, the group was cautious in claiming that this system can effectively fight analyst bias. The group felt this would be ineffective at combating and in fact may promote groupthink.
The group also discussed “problem-solving schemas”, from the latter article. As a person encounters problems, and more importantly successfully solves problems, they develop “schemas” (or standardized structures for solving problems). Try this equation: A+2b+a=? The average person would attempt to solve this problem using an algebraic problem-solving schema. A person may ignore the anomaly that there is no integer or value on one side of the equation and therefore the problem is in its most reduced form. A person may try to fix the problem to fit their schema by adding an integer: A+2b+a=X, however this is not the original query and they have merely “patched up” the problem to fit the schema. The answer is Abba. We would attempt to argue that this problem is incorrectly stated, and that although it is not a complete algebraic equation it contains algebraic language (2b). However, this only emphasizes the point. Although some of the question fits the algebraic model for problem solving, the anomaly tells us we are using the wrong schema. Here in lies the problem: if we misidentify the query and apply the wrong schema to solve it we will inevitably have errors in our analytical processes, regardless of their accuracy. From these concepts, the group identified what it considered to be one of the most dangerous biases: the “paradigm”. It was the belief of the group that the ABM, or other known anti-bias techniques could not redress this bias.
Our answer to this bias: imagination. In past meetings the group has discussed what makes good analysts. The analysts stated that analytical sciences and techniques could be taught to make acceptable analysts, however certain qualities of exemplar analysts are innate. Many historical “failures of intelligence” (9/11, Pearl Harbor, Iran [Shah/Ayatollah], etc.) are characterized as “failures of imagination.” The think tank believes it may be extremely beneficial to identify some “jumping off points” between empirical analyses and imaginative analyses, doctrinal and counter intuitive thinking. The group poses the question: “Can we identify turning points or cues in the analysis process when the current use of a paradigm should be questioned?” One possible answer to this is the systematic search and identification process of anomalies. The think tank concluded with the assertion that, perhaps, analysis should be “revolutionary” in nature. That is to say, it should be fearless, and ready to question the very foundations of its own reasoning, and cast off paradigms, which have in the past proven fruitful. This again brings into question the validity of “experts”, and experienced analysts. The think tank wonders what effects long-term dedications to paradigms have on the analyst. We pose a series of questions for further inspection using primarily psychological principals: Were analysts so engrossed in the era of counter-Soviet intelligence ready for 9/11? Who is the more effective analyst: the Lance Corporal (entry level analyst), or the Colonel (experienced analyst)? What weight should “expert” opinions have on analysis? Can “expert” knowledge be presented in a digestible manner, which a non-expert analyst may use effectively? How can we know when and how to be imaginative? How do we learn to be revolutionaries, and how do we know when it is appropriate?
Professor Hoff was careful to mention that biases have evolved in the human psyche as survival tools or techniques, which improve cognitive abilities. There is a question of what extent human intuition can be trusted. The group has resolved itself to consider biases to have positive and negative qualities based on their context.
We hope to answer these questions by reviewing existing work in the field (such as Heuer’s book Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, the afore mentioned articles, etc.) and new applications of existing psychological principals. To this end we are resolved.
MINUTES OF THINK TANK MEETING 06JAN2005
1) MEET AND GREET
2) ATTENDANCE:
Prof Hoff
Halen Allison
Lance Ramsey
Mark Blair
3) OPENING SHOTS:
a) (Mark Blair): I wanted to remind everyone that Heuer’s book Psychology of Intelligence Analysis is available on line at http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/19104/ In the future this book will be a subject of review for us, and you may wish to do some preliminary reading or print it out ahead of time.
b) (Mark Blair): I would also like to point out that the Mercyhurst Intelligence Studies Dept as published a new book elaborating on Heuer’s concept: Analysis of Completing Hypothesis (ACH), entitled Structured Analysis of Competing Hypothesis. I have acquired a copy for Prof Hoff.
c) (Mark Blair): Gentlemen, Halen Allison and I have created an online blog for the “Mercyhurst Psychology of Intelligence Analysis Think Tank.” It can be found at http://www.psychintel.blogspot.com/. Please go online and review it. Ensure that there are no issues that we have discussed absent, and ensure that it properly represents our meetings to your recollection.
i. Once I have a thumbs up from all of you I would like to send out invitations to the faculty of the Psychology Dept and the Intelligence Studies program to review it and give feed back.
ii. Furthermore I would like to invite Col Walters of III Marine Expeditionary Force and Col Millen of the Strategic Studies Institute to review our blog and leave feedback.
iii. Finally, I believe Dr Owoc of the Anthropology Department could provide us with unique viewpoints and exposure to paralell concepts such as human agency. I also believe any curriculums that may result from our work may have interest to anthropology students. An early interaction with the Anthropology Department will allow us to address their concerns and interests in this subject. For these reasons I would like to invite Dr Owoc to join our online dialogue.
iv. I would like unanimous consent for these invitations. (Unanimous consent is given).
v. I would also like to encourage anyone else with suggestions or possible contributors to bring them up in this or future meetings.
4) The two text were discussed simultaneously.
a. (Prof Hoff) What did each of you think about the “Combating Cognitive Biases in Information Retrieval?”
b. (Halen Allison) I think this has great potential for document exploitation. I would like to get a hold of this program to test it. I think it would greatly benefit our efforts in the Venona Project. But, I’m not sure it would combat some of the more standardized biases analysts face, such as mirror image biases etc.
c. (Prof Hoff) Maybe someone can explain this system a little better for me. It reminds me of Amazon.com. When you purchase a book it comes up with a list of books that people bought who also bought the book you are purchasing. Conceivably it then monitors what books from that list are bought by others or even just “click on.” Then it refines the list accordingly.
d. (Mark Blair) Yes that was my take. I noticed, to my understanding, striking similarities to how Google works. Google monitors search parameters, again to the best of my understanding, and then records what people select or click on. Through this learning process Google learns what results are relevant to search parameters. The Anti-Bias Mechanism (ABM) records queries which individual analyst rate in terms of relevance. The common findings, or unions, are assumed to be unbiased. These unions form the bases for the development of alternative queries, with which the ABM returns findings on the original query along with findings of the alternative maps. These findings are considered “immunized.” The ABS uses the search parameters to identify other related and relevant search parameters to theoretically provide results of alternative questions. That is to say the system assumes the question/queries may be biased or exclusive and not include other possibilities. Like, asking, “Where are the terrorists”, this question does not provide for the possibility that there are no terrorists present.
e. (Prof Hoff) In the Amazon example there may be a book you would like that no one has purchased and the system cannot provide for that contingency. Plus there is the potential that these findings may serve as social pressure. (Especially with the less experienced analyst.) By providing the most viewed or best rated (in terms of relevancy) a person may be subject to a social pressure to assume this view. I could serve as a computerize groupthink or ban wagon effect.
f. (Mark Blair) I agree, but I’m not sure the alternative results are identified as being different from the result based on the original query. I think that the ABM may also have a monitoring utility. If people can monitor the findings of the ABM it may be possible to identify groupthink or common fundamental errors. Especially if it has a wide dissemination. It may be able to identify “regional”, that is interoffice or interagency, etc. beliefs. By studying and comparing this data we may be able to identify and resolve differences in analysis in the intelligence community as a whole. It may also reveal failures of communication between agencies. For instance, one agency may have info or intel that they are using in their analysis that another agency is without. A system that could identify discrepancies in analysis may also identify discrepancies in information. I think also that the process involved may be helpful to understand and could possibly be utilized outside of the computer realm.
g. (Halen Allison) Yes, concepts like “Devils Advocate” should be part of analysis standard operating procedures (SOPs).
h. (Mark Blair) This is of key importance. The other paper “Observation of Cognitive Factors” mentions problem-solving schemas. People develop these problem solving schemas from encounters with problems in their past. The danger of biased analysis lies in the misidentification of a problem, and the application of an inappropriate problem-solving schema to a non-related problem. Consider the equation A+2b+a=. The majority of people, presumably, would, at least initially, adopt an algebraic problem-solving schema. Many may ignore the lack of an value after the equation (i.e. =2 or X). A person may try to fix the problem by adding an integer such as A+2b+a=X. However, they are misapplying an inappropriate problem-solving schema to a problem. The answer is, of course, Abba your favorite and mine. So the question, in this case, is not over the nonsensical form of the question, yet a question of what do you bring to the table?
i. (Prof Hoff) I think we should be careful here. Biases evolved for a purpose. Biases are adaptive and not necessarily bad. Systems designed to remove biases could inevitably be harmful in some cases. We should consider positive and negative transfer. (Psych definition from Contemporary Behavior Therapy by Spiegler & Guevremont: Transfer- Process in which what is learned and practiced in one setting [such as therapy] carries over to other settings [such as home].) We may gain from considering the Blink Approach, by Malcolm Gladwell? His studies ask, “To what extent we can trust human intuition.” One danger we must take a look at is the existence of paradigms. Take scientific paradigms for instance. When some one subscribes to a paradigm, they not only become rationally tied to it, but also emotionally tied to it. Paradigms are used to define the world around you, and the way you conduct yourself. Paradigms may start to have flaws or anomalies. There may be things or instances that are the exceptions to the paradigm. Those who are considerably invested in the paradigm may begin to “patch up” the paradigm. But pretty soon you have patches everywhere as the paradigm continues to fail in other situations. The young guys, new to the field, don’t have as many problems with this. It’s the old guys who can’t let go of the old paradigms who push these paradigms beyond their validity. It’s the young guys, who based on the old guys work, break the mold and bring on new paradigms.
j. (Lance Ramsey) I agree it is often the ones who are fresh to a field to precipitate the evolution of the way we think.
k. (Prof Hoff) But it’s more than that. Its not evolution, its revolution man! The old way is completely cast off in favor of a new and better paradigm that is not in conflict with the anomalies of the old paradigm that accumulate over time. Take Einstein of instance: How did Einstein cast of the old Newtonian view of physics and radically redefine the universe. It’s that fundamental change of the basics that constitutes revolution. The old rules didn’t work anymore so he reinvented the concepts of physics, for instance: relativity. It’s imagination that allows you to go beyond a currently excepted paradigm. History has proven that it’s difficult to go beyond these paradigms. Imagine the first time it was suggested that the Earth was round or the Earth revolved around the Sun and not vice versa.
l. (Mark Blair) If it is a question of revolution, well we find ourselves on the precipice of revolution. After the 9/11, the WMD question, etc. anomalies have present themselves in the old paradigm of intelligence and everyone is scrambling to patch it up. I believe that the “good stuff” lies in the details. That is to say, often the bricks at the bottom of the wall are the ones most likely to weaken the wall. But how do we learn, and teach others to have imaginative processes that are able to reach to the very foundations of thought and problem solving to identify these anomalies?
m. (Prof Hoff) This is the question that many ask. You hear it all the time. Bosses in a board meeting ask, “Lets think outside the box”, only to be met with silence. Paradigms are often a question of comfort. The ABM gives us the terrain we are comfortable in, but it can’t lead to radical anti-biases mechanisms. It may generate ideas or directions we haven’t thought of but I don’t think it gives us new eyes.
n. (?) We have new interests in critical thinking, which I think is good, but its missing a creative quality.
o. (Mark Blair) How do we regard this critical vs. imaginative thinking? Where is the line, and how do we identify it? Can we identify a point where one type of thinking is more appropriate than the other?
p. (Prof Hoff) I think these two types of thinking can be complimentary. We may consider anomaly centric thinking or imaginative thinking. That is we may identify anomalies and then try to go into new, unexplained territory through an imaginative process.
q. (Mark Blair) Often this is how analysts think. We ask ourselves: “What do I know?” “What don’t I know?” etc. There was an example Prof Grabelski gave in one of his presentations which demonstrates this point. A young girl went to her mother's funeral. Though sadden she met a man she had never seen before. She became convinced the he was the man for her, however she did not get his phone number before leaving. For the next couple weeks she fell into depression. Two weeks after her mother’s funeral, the young girl murdered her sister. Why? When I heard this story I immediately zeroed in on the strange man. For me the relationship of the strange man to the family was an anomaly. It was what “I don’t know.” I was but a hairs distance from figuring out the entire case. However, there was a failure of imagination. I assumed there was an answer to this question. Someone knew this man, or knew why this man was at the funeral. However, if someone knew the man the young girl would have, conceivably, asked everyone and gotten in touch with him. So the young girl has the same issue as I do. Yet, the man for some reason knew the family or at least the mother, and cared enough to come to her funeral. So the young girl deduced that he would also come to her sister’s funeral. So she murdered her sister. Perhaps, if we can identify anomalies then that, in itself, is an indicator to turn on the imagination, and let go of the paradigms. I guess that seems rather obvious.
r. (Prof Hoff) I think it is clear that old paradigms are not only captivating of those who have used them for an extended period of time, but it renders the users incapable of understanding news ideas. (Provided they can’t let go of the old paradigm.)
5) Next week, Mercyhurst Psychology of Intelligence Think Tank Meeting 12Jan2006: The group decided to review “Cognitive Rigidity: methods to overcome it” by David W. Robson for next week.
6) Closing Comments: Thank you Gentlemen for attending this meeting. Thank you to everyone who may review our minutes. We would like to invite feedback from all who feel so inclined.
Prior to the 05JAN2006 Think Tank meeting, members reviewed two articles: “Combating Cognitive Biases in Information Retrieval” by Rafael Alonso, and Hua Li and “Observations on ‘Cognitive Factors in Design’” by Thomas T. Hewitt. The group discussed the method by which the Anti-Bias Mechanism (ABM) (in the former article) worked to develop an alternative query in Internet searches conducted by analysts. The group agreed that a “Google” styled evaluation of information, found to be commonly relevant by other analysts (unions), has some utility. However, the group was cautious in claiming that this system can effectively fight analyst bias. The group felt this would be ineffective at combating and in fact may promote groupthink.
The group also discussed “problem-solving schemas”, from the latter article. As a person encounters problems, and more importantly successfully solves problems, they develop “schemas” (or standardized structures for solving problems). Try this equation: A+2b+a=? The average person would attempt to solve this problem using an algebraic problem-solving schema. A person may ignore the anomaly that there is no integer or value on one side of the equation and therefore the problem is in its most reduced form. A person may try to fix the problem to fit their schema by adding an integer: A+2b+a=X, however this is not the original query and they have merely “patched up” the problem to fit the schema. The answer is Abba. We would attempt to argue that this problem is incorrectly stated, and that although it is not a complete algebraic equation it contains algebraic language (2b). However, this only emphasizes the point. Although some of the question fits the algebraic model for problem solving, the anomaly tells us we are using the wrong schema. Here in lies the problem: if we misidentify the query and apply the wrong schema to solve it we will inevitably have errors in our analytical processes, regardless of their accuracy. From these concepts, the group identified what it considered to be one of the most dangerous biases: the “paradigm”. It was the belief of the group that the ABM, or other known anti-bias techniques could not redress this bias.
Our answer to this bias: imagination. In past meetings the group has discussed what makes good analysts. The analysts stated that analytical sciences and techniques could be taught to make acceptable analysts, however certain qualities of exemplar analysts are innate. Many historical “failures of intelligence” (9/11, Pearl Harbor, Iran [Shah/Ayatollah], etc.) are characterized as “failures of imagination.” The think tank believes it may be extremely beneficial to identify some “jumping off points” between empirical analyses and imaginative analyses, doctrinal and counter intuitive thinking. The group poses the question: “Can we identify turning points or cues in the analysis process when the current use of a paradigm should be questioned?” One possible answer to this is the systematic search and identification process of anomalies. The think tank concluded with the assertion that, perhaps, analysis should be “revolutionary” in nature. That is to say, it should be fearless, and ready to question the very foundations of its own reasoning, and cast off paradigms, which have in the past proven fruitful. This again brings into question the validity of “experts”, and experienced analysts. The think tank wonders what effects long-term dedications to paradigms have on the analyst. We pose a series of questions for further inspection using primarily psychological principals: Were analysts so engrossed in the era of counter-Soviet intelligence ready for 9/11? Who is the more effective analyst: the Lance Corporal (entry level analyst), or the Colonel (experienced analyst)? What weight should “expert” opinions have on analysis? Can “expert” knowledge be presented in a digestible manner, which a non-expert analyst may use effectively? How can we know when and how to be imaginative? How do we learn to be revolutionaries, and how do we know when it is appropriate?
Professor Hoff was careful to mention that biases have evolved in the human psyche as survival tools or techniques, which improve cognitive abilities. There is a question of what extent human intuition can be trusted. The group has resolved itself to consider biases to have positive and negative qualities based on their context.
We hope to answer these questions by reviewing existing work in the field (such as Heuer’s book Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, the afore mentioned articles, etc.) and new applications of existing psychological principals. To this end we are resolved.
MINUTES OF THINK TANK MEETING 06JAN2005
1) MEET AND GREET
2) ATTENDANCE:
Prof Hoff
Halen Allison
Lance Ramsey
Mark Blair
3) OPENING SHOTS:
a) (Mark Blair): I wanted to remind everyone that Heuer’s book Psychology of Intelligence Analysis is available on line at http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/19104/ In the future this book will be a subject of review for us, and you may wish to do some preliminary reading or print it out ahead of time.
b) (Mark Blair): I would also like to point out that the Mercyhurst Intelligence Studies Dept as published a new book elaborating on Heuer’s concept: Analysis of Completing Hypothesis (ACH), entitled Structured Analysis of Competing Hypothesis. I have acquired a copy for Prof Hoff.
c) (Mark Blair): Gentlemen, Halen Allison and I have created an online blog for the “Mercyhurst Psychology of Intelligence Analysis Think Tank.” It can be found at http://www.psychintel.blogspot.com/. Please go online and review it. Ensure that there are no issues that we have discussed absent, and ensure that it properly represents our meetings to your recollection.
i. Once I have a thumbs up from all of you I would like to send out invitations to the faculty of the Psychology Dept and the Intelligence Studies program to review it and give feed back.
ii. Furthermore I would like to invite Col Walters of III Marine Expeditionary Force and Col Millen of the Strategic Studies Institute to review our blog and leave feedback.
iii. Finally, I believe Dr Owoc of the Anthropology Department could provide us with unique viewpoints and exposure to paralell concepts such as human agency. I also believe any curriculums that may result from our work may have interest to anthropology students. An early interaction with the Anthropology Department will allow us to address their concerns and interests in this subject. For these reasons I would like to invite Dr Owoc to join our online dialogue.
iv. I would like unanimous consent for these invitations. (Unanimous consent is given).
v. I would also like to encourage anyone else with suggestions or possible contributors to bring them up in this or future meetings.
4) The two text were discussed simultaneously.
a. (Prof Hoff) What did each of you think about the “Combating Cognitive Biases in Information Retrieval?”
b. (Halen Allison) I think this has great potential for document exploitation. I would like to get a hold of this program to test it. I think it would greatly benefit our efforts in the Venona Project. But, I’m not sure it would combat some of the more standardized biases analysts face, such as mirror image biases etc.
c. (Prof Hoff) Maybe someone can explain this system a little better for me. It reminds me of Amazon.com. When you purchase a book it comes up with a list of books that people bought who also bought the book you are purchasing. Conceivably it then monitors what books from that list are bought by others or even just “click on.” Then it refines the list accordingly.
d. (Mark Blair) Yes that was my take. I noticed, to my understanding, striking similarities to how Google works. Google monitors search parameters, again to the best of my understanding, and then records what people select or click on. Through this learning process Google learns what results are relevant to search parameters. The Anti-Bias Mechanism (ABM) records queries which individual analyst rate in terms of relevance. The common findings, or unions, are assumed to be unbiased. These unions form the bases for the development of alternative queries, with which the ABM returns findings on the original query along with findings of the alternative maps. These findings are considered “immunized.” The ABS uses the search parameters to identify other related and relevant search parameters to theoretically provide results of alternative questions. That is to say the system assumes the question/queries may be biased or exclusive and not include other possibilities. Like, asking, “Where are the terrorists”, this question does not provide for the possibility that there are no terrorists present.
e. (Prof Hoff) In the Amazon example there may be a book you would like that no one has purchased and the system cannot provide for that contingency. Plus there is the potential that these findings may serve as social pressure. (Especially with the less experienced analyst.) By providing the most viewed or best rated (in terms of relevancy) a person may be subject to a social pressure to assume this view. I could serve as a computerize groupthink or ban wagon effect.
f. (Mark Blair) I agree, but I’m not sure the alternative results are identified as being different from the result based on the original query. I think that the ABM may also have a monitoring utility. If people can monitor the findings of the ABM it may be possible to identify groupthink or common fundamental errors. Especially if it has a wide dissemination. It may be able to identify “regional”, that is interoffice or interagency, etc. beliefs. By studying and comparing this data we may be able to identify and resolve differences in analysis in the intelligence community as a whole. It may also reveal failures of communication between agencies. For instance, one agency may have info or intel that they are using in their analysis that another agency is without. A system that could identify discrepancies in analysis may also identify discrepancies in information. I think also that the process involved may be helpful to understand and could possibly be utilized outside of the computer realm.
g. (Halen Allison) Yes, concepts like “Devils Advocate” should be part of analysis standard operating procedures (SOPs).
h. (Mark Blair) This is of key importance. The other paper “Observation of Cognitive Factors” mentions problem-solving schemas. People develop these problem solving schemas from encounters with problems in their past. The danger of biased analysis lies in the misidentification of a problem, and the application of an inappropriate problem-solving schema to a non-related problem. Consider the equation A+2b+a=. The majority of people, presumably, would, at least initially, adopt an algebraic problem-solving schema. Many may ignore the lack of an value after the equation (i.e. =2 or X). A person may try to fix the problem by adding an integer such as A+2b+a=X. However, they are misapplying an inappropriate problem-solving schema to a problem. The answer is, of course, Abba your favorite and mine. So the question, in this case, is not over the nonsensical form of the question, yet a question of what do you bring to the table?
i. (Prof Hoff) I think we should be careful here. Biases evolved for a purpose. Biases are adaptive and not necessarily bad. Systems designed to remove biases could inevitably be harmful in some cases. We should consider positive and negative transfer. (Psych definition from Contemporary Behavior Therapy by Spiegler & Guevremont: Transfer- Process in which what is learned and practiced in one setting [such as therapy] carries over to other settings [such as home].) We may gain from considering the Blink Approach, by Malcolm Gladwell? His studies ask, “To what extent we can trust human intuition.” One danger we must take a look at is the existence of paradigms. Take scientific paradigms for instance. When some one subscribes to a paradigm, they not only become rationally tied to it, but also emotionally tied to it. Paradigms are used to define the world around you, and the way you conduct yourself. Paradigms may start to have flaws or anomalies. There may be things or instances that are the exceptions to the paradigm. Those who are considerably invested in the paradigm may begin to “patch up” the paradigm. But pretty soon you have patches everywhere as the paradigm continues to fail in other situations. The young guys, new to the field, don’t have as many problems with this. It’s the old guys who can’t let go of the old paradigms who push these paradigms beyond their validity. It’s the young guys, who based on the old guys work, break the mold and bring on new paradigms.
j. (Lance Ramsey) I agree it is often the ones who are fresh to a field to precipitate the evolution of the way we think.
k. (Prof Hoff) But it’s more than that. Its not evolution, its revolution man! The old way is completely cast off in favor of a new and better paradigm that is not in conflict with the anomalies of the old paradigm that accumulate over time. Take Einstein of instance: How did Einstein cast of the old Newtonian view of physics and radically redefine the universe. It’s that fundamental change of the basics that constitutes revolution. The old rules didn’t work anymore so he reinvented the concepts of physics, for instance: relativity. It’s imagination that allows you to go beyond a currently excepted paradigm. History has proven that it’s difficult to go beyond these paradigms. Imagine the first time it was suggested that the Earth was round or the Earth revolved around the Sun and not vice versa.
l. (Mark Blair) If it is a question of revolution, well we find ourselves on the precipice of revolution. After the 9/11, the WMD question, etc. anomalies have present themselves in the old paradigm of intelligence and everyone is scrambling to patch it up. I believe that the “good stuff” lies in the details. That is to say, often the bricks at the bottom of the wall are the ones most likely to weaken the wall. But how do we learn, and teach others to have imaginative processes that are able to reach to the very foundations of thought and problem solving to identify these anomalies?
m. (Prof Hoff) This is the question that many ask. You hear it all the time. Bosses in a board meeting ask, “Lets think outside the box”, only to be met with silence. Paradigms are often a question of comfort. The ABM gives us the terrain we are comfortable in, but it can’t lead to radical anti-biases mechanisms. It may generate ideas or directions we haven’t thought of but I don’t think it gives us new eyes.
n. (?) We have new interests in critical thinking, which I think is good, but its missing a creative quality.
o. (Mark Blair) How do we regard this critical vs. imaginative thinking? Where is the line, and how do we identify it? Can we identify a point where one type of thinking is more appropriate than the other?
p. (Prof Hoff) I think these two types of thinking can be complimentary. We may consider anomaly centric thinking or imaginative thinking. That is we may identify anomalies and then try to go into new, unexplained territory through an imaginative process.
q. (Mark Blair) Often this is how analysts think. We ask ourselves: “What do I know?” “What don’t I know?” etc. There was an example Prof Grabelski gave in one of his presentations which demonstrates this point. A young girl went to her mother's funeral. Though sadden she met a man she had never seen before. She became convinced the he was the man for her, however she did not get his phone number before leaving. For the next couple weeks she fell into depression. Two weeks after her mother’s funeral, the young girl murdered her sister. Why? When I heard this story I immediately zeroed in on the strange man. For me the relationship of the strange man to the family was an anomaly. It was what “I don’t know.” I was but a hairs distance from figuring out the entire case. However, there was a failure of imagination. I assumed there was an answer to this question. Someone knew this man, or knew why this man was at the funeral. However, if someone knew the man the young girl would have, conceivably, asked everyone and gotten in touch with him. So the young girl has the same issue as I do. Yet, the man for some reason knew the family or at least the mother, and cared enough to come to her funeral. So the young girl deduced that he would also come to her sister’s funeral. So she murdered her sister. Perhaps, if we can identify anomalies then that, in itself, is an indicator to turn on the imagination, and let go of the paradigms. I guess that seems rather obvious.
r. (Prof Hoff) I think it is clear that old paradigms are not only captivating of those who have used them for an extended period of time, but it renders the users incapable of understanding news ideas. (Provided they can’t let go of the old paradigm.)
5) Next week, Mercyhurst Psychology of Intelligence Think Tank Meeting 12Jan2006: The group decided to review “Cognitive Rigidity: methods to overcome it” by David W. Robson for next week.
6) Closing Comments: Thank you Gentlemen for attending this meeting. Thank you to everyone who may review our minutes. We would like to invite feedback from all who feel so inclined.
posted by markcblair at 9:20 PM
1 Comments:
Unintentional analytical bias would appear to pose two problems for the analyst: (1) it can limit one's field of view (evoked set reasoning bias at the very least)which appears to be the major problem that it can cause; and (2) it affects effective analysis once the problem is defined and the subsequent communication of that analysis. Regarding the latter, there's been a number of attempts to create a formalized procedure to limit the effects of unintentional bias.
The lastest example of this I've recently seen is Sundri Khalsa's FORECASTING TERRORISM: INDICATORS AND PROVEN ANALYTIC TECHNIQUES (Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, 2004). A very slim volume with a CD included (containing her computer program described in the text), this Air Force officer includes tests of terrorism analysis method against indication and warning pitfalls. In her application, these tests are applied against the analysis. Her work is worth reading because it's a concise description of many of the unintentional biases out there and she provides a tool to help diagnose one's own work when completed.
Despite that, it's very difficult to overcome the first instance of unintentional bias because you only know what you see/can imagine. Things only become clear in retrospect. The challenge is develop flexibility of mind--and how best to do that? The philosphers and psychologists may have better answers than I do.
--emw
Post a Comment
<< Home