Structured Analytic Techniques

[Ron Collins]

I ran across this publication while looking for some documents on the CIA website. I think this should be required reading for anyone seriously looking for answers or information on just about any topic. I think everyone here would be well served to give it a read. I promise that you will not regret the time spent reading it.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/Tradecraft%20Primer-apr09.pdf

 

[nameless]

this explains the the "use of post it note" ratio in `"Homelander".

they could chuck in some simple outside the field study too like understanding ockham's razor and phenominal variability, the excluded middle etc..but it would only confuse their tiny compartmentalised minds. besides where was all this anlysis shit when they were "keeping tabs" on Khalid and Nawaf.

I know an analyst for the MET. When he first started his induction consisted of a warning that he would be working with policemen who were "not very bright". He was given a bunch of folders about gangs that were just uncorroborated hearsay, the rest of his job being cutting and pasting uncorroborated crap from google. He then had to present it as factual intel to whatever dude was trying to instigate some media knee jerk government crime initiative.

 

[Ron Collins]

I think that this is an excellent process to exercise when researching the topics we discuss in this forum. This is like critical thinking on steroids. It obviously takes patients and discipline but it has the potential of yielding far more information than other haphazard and disjointed research methods. At least thats how I see it.

 

[boomerang]

Thanks, Ron. Have it saved to disk for later reading. At a glance, it looks like "stuff" that should be required reading on every freshman curriculum and elsewhere, but sadly is not.

 

[Randall]

I ran across this publication while looking for some documents on the CIA website. I think this should be required reading for anyone seriously looking for answers or information on just about any topic ...

Good post Ron! I think I missed my calling. It would be cool to be able to do that type of analysis for a living. I could relate to it all almost immediately. Funny thing too when it mentions the D.C. Sniper. I remember them saying on the news how they couldn't build a suspect profile because of the lack of any identifiable pattern, and thinking that if the news was correct, the lack of an apparent motive was the most significant piece of profiling in the case, making the common feature of the shooter's targets people who were simply American and that the ensuing result was terror, and in light of the prominence of Jihadist terrorists, I suggested it was an Islamic radical, probably darker skinned who's name was probably Mohamed ... and pretty much nailed it. Now I'm sure other people must have been thinking the same thing, but didn't want to risk the political fallout from racial and/or religious profiling.

Returning to topic ... What USI encourages is the use of a process called Critical Thinking which is described here in this model from the Foundation for Critical Thinking. A lot of the methods in the link you posted fall within the critical thinking model in some way or another.

 

[Randall]

I think that this is an excellent process to exercise when researching the topics we discuss in this forum. This is like critical thinking on steroids. It obviously takes patients and discipline but it has the potential of yielding far more information than other haphazard and disjointed research methods. At least thats how I see it.

Haphazard and disjointed research methods ... or worse ... like flaming, defamation and cyberbullying. I was recently a victim of all three on a forum called the "Untitled Research Project" ( you might have some familiarity with it ). Let's take a look at what one flamer in particular had to say when I brought up the topic of critical thinking:

Thank you, professor. I'm sure you are a genius in your own mind, but we are not taking classes from you. Part of the reaction is because you are coming at us from this snooty, lofty, elevated place, and I, at least, see no reason to accept your superiority. I see no evidence of advanced education, and no evidence of any contributions that would make me take any particular notice.

As you can see above, the response goes beyond merely failing to address the issue of critical thinking, it also attacks my character. It is only one of several increasingly toxic flames hurled at me, culminating in outright libel.

One of the things anti-cyberbullying groups recommend when people are attacked online is to inform whatever authorities and organizations are concerned with the problem. So I started with who I believed was the senior forum admin, who I gave a 48 hour window to retract the objectionable material before going beyond the forum to complain about the flamer. The result was that the attacks were allowed to continue in the name of "free speech". This couldn't be more hypocritical, because he also banned me from the site for "threatening" to complain.

I've still not received any notice of a retraction for the defamatory comments, so I began tracking down the ISP, anti-cyberbullying organizations, and businesses related to this "project". It's listed as being run out of Dallas Texas, I know who the forum admin is. He is the owner of a small software company, that for now shall remain unnamed in the hopes that he will yet come to his senses and retract the defamatory comments from the site. My next steps are to see if there are any anti-cyberbullying groups in Dallas, how their chamber of commerce views the problem and what other actions I can safely and legally take.

In the meantime, I would not recommend this "research project" for anyone. They've been leeching members from the Paracast for some time now. Based on my experience it was toxic and I regret ever having participated in it.