The first step in reducing the effect of cognitive and perceptual bias is to first understand what they are. Heuer noted: “Cognitive biases are mental errors caused by our simplified information processing strategies.” (Richards J. Heuer, 1999). Because of our limited cognitive abilities, we make assumptions to fill our information gaps, these assumptions are not always right.
Heuer brought up some the limitations (Richards J. Heuer, 1999):
-We tend to perceive what we expect to perceive.
-Mind-sets tend to be quick to form but resistant to change.
-Initial exposure to blurred or ambiguous stimuli interferes with accurate perception even after more and better information becomes available.
The Tradecraft Primer brings up more of these limitations (and directly quotes Heuer)
Some Common form of bias are:
-Mirror Imaging: “filling gaps in the analyst's own knowledge by assuming that the other side is likely to act in a certain way because that is how the US would act under similar circumstances.” (Richards J. Heuer, 1999) (ex. Iraq would never fake having WMDs because it is illogical, the USSR would never put ICBMs in Cuba)
-Satisficing: selecting the first identified alternative that appears "good enough"
There are quite a few techniques for combating perceptual limitations and the resulting cognitive bias.
-Heuer proposed the use of Analysis of Competing Hypothesis which is a structured framework for rating hypothesis based on what is unlikely.
The following strategies were set forth in the Tradecraft Primer (US Government, 2009):
-Key Assumption Check: List and review the key working assumptions on which fundamental judgments rest. (in my words: find what you are assuming and see if it makes sense)
-Quality of Information Check: Evaluates completeness and soundness of available information sources. (in my words: check your sources and make sure you know the quality)
-Indicators or signposts of change: Periodically review a list of observable events or trends to track events, monitor targets, spot emerging trends, and warn of unanticipated change. (in my words: set a significant event that will assist in the analysis and monitor to see if that event has been tripped)
-Devil’s Advocacy: Challenging a single, strongly held view or consensus by building the best possible case for an alternative explanation. (in my words: try to poke holes in the prevailing logic)
-Team A / Team B: Use of separate analytic teams that contrast two (or more) strongly held views or competing hypotheses. (in my words: have two teams thoroughly investigate an issue and contrast the findings, make sure they don’t go the same direction)
-High impact low probability analysis: Highlights a seemingly unlikely event that would have major policy consequences if it happened. (see if a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 may happen).
-“What If?” Analysis: Assumes that an event has occurred with potential (negative or positive) impact and explains how it might come about. (in my words: see what would happen if certain things were actually the case)
-And even more!
There are a lot of strategies and they are useful in different situations. One of the big factors is time, analytic technique takes time which requires a lot of skill and training to be effective as there is never enough time
Respectfully,
Harman
References
Richards J. Heuer, J. (1999). Psychology of Intelligence Analysis . Langley, VA: CENTER for the STUDY of INTELLIGENCE - CIA.
US Government. (2009). A Tradecraft Primer: Structured Analytic Techniques for Improving Intelligence Analysis. US Government.
dqbnez
w6fr1.docx
0
