How Spies Think: Ten Lessons in Intelligence

Product Information

De wil om optimistisch te eindigen lijkt hier misschien wat sterker te zijn geweest dan de kracht van de analyse. I did appreciate the focus on digital misinformation and trust, which is very apt given current world events, however, I found the author's predictions and prescriptions a little unrealistic. The book is not as thorough in the discussion of the author's critical thinking approach as I would like, but it's certainly enough to get interested readers started in the approach.

Overall, I enjoyed reading the book, and I did learn a few nuggets that I will take with me in my thinking about critical thinking.And perhaps it's a little odd that Professor Omand does not take the trouble to list the several failures of the JIC over the years, regardless of his beautiful formula: p(N)/E=p(N. A former Director of GCHQ and Cabinet Office security and intelligence coordinator turned academic, Omand is a well-qualified guide. Analysts might also rely too much on outdated information or fail to distinguish between assessments based on hard evidence from those based on assumptions. e. ‘information that is known to be false before it is circulated’ – ook wel bekend als nepnieuws) en ‘malinformation’ (i. But Omand also identifies disconfirmation bias as the fierce scrutiny of anything that doesn’t fit your world view, while letting information that does fit go unchallenged.

Z ostrożnością, z dystansem i rozwagą będę starała się podchodzić do wszelkich wiadomości, choć na super agenta i analityka nie mam zadatków😉. The analysis of computing hypotheses using Heur tables is an example of one of the structured analytic techniques in use today. The second part is a deep understanding as to why it is happening and the various motivations behind any parties involved. The message here is that certain aspects of intelligence / counterintelligence do not change, they only make use of new technology.Omand besteedt daarnaast veel tijd aan de logica van gehanteerde aannames en gevolgtrekkingen (“assumptions and inferences”).

This seems important: in seeking to heal civil society of the sickness of disinformation, Sir David et al. Als directeur van GCHQ, het Britse equivalent van de Amerikaanse National Security Agency, zou hij in de jaren negentig van de vorige eeuw zijn organisatie als een van de eerste inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten het internettijdperk inleiden. W swojej pracy zajmował się gromadzeniem informacji, weryfikowaniem ich wiarygodności i prognozowaniem jak one mogą wpłynąć na przebieg różnych wydarzeń. die de zogenaamde wet van de spaarzaamheid hanteerde en als eerste het kentheoretische uitgangspunt formuleerde dat de simpelste verklaring meestal de juiste verklaring is. Finally, in a speculative scenario set in 2027, he explains how internal and external enemies could destabilise the UK with cyberattacks and misinformation.

Both have a similar kind of message that one needs to be careful with the world when surrounded and bombarded with information from various sources, with various degrees of freedom and truthfulness. There is relatively little new here for anyone familiar with scientific inquiry, heuristics, Bayesian inference, or cognitive biases, on the one hand, or the history of intelligence in the twentieth century, especially of Anglo-American history.

jest wprowadzić człowieka w błąd, a w dzisiejszym cyfrowym świecie, łatwo jest manipulować informacjami i łatwo je nagłaśnieć. The lesson he provides in an approach to critical thinking and analysis are as applicable in the world of government policy analysis, business development or investing as they are in the intelligence realm. A highlight of the book, though, is all the "war stories" the author tells from his decades of service in the UK intelligence and defense communities.In a way it teaches you to approach problem solutions differently along with telling us about fake news, elections campaigns, cold wars etc. My biggest take aways are the desire to take a course in logic (get more practice with Bayesian Inference) and go with the theory that has the least factors seeming to disprove it - not the one with the most supporting evidence.