"Do you mean to say they could be rounding Diamond Head and you wouldn't know it?" The man who asked this was Husband E. Kimmel, commander in chief of the US Pacific fleet, and he addressed the question to Edwin Layton, his intelligence officer. "They" were the Japanese aircraft carriers, and Diamond Head is a famous mountain peak on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, just 20 kilometres from Pearl Harbour. The date was December 2, 1941. Kaga, Akagi, Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku were not off Diamond Head, but they had left port seven days before, to launch an attack that would start a war - and incidentally, bring an inglorious end to Kimmel's career.
When that attack came, Kimmel had done nothing to prevent it or blunt its impact, although his question showed that he was not entire unaware of the danger. Intelligence failure is of all times, and when it happens it is common to say, as is done now after the attack in Detroit, that it was a failure to connect the dots. That is a convenient explanation, but it doesn't do any justice to the problem of analysing a diverse collection of bits of information into useful intelligence. In reality, the paper tends to be full of dots, some of them true and some of them false, and the problem is one of selecting the relevant dots and connecting them in the right sequence. Usually the problem cannot be solved by studying all possible combinations, because the number of these is simply too vast, and a method must be devised to create the potentially most useful ones. Even then, every picture that emerges has to be assessed for the probability that it is real. Kimmel, as his question illustrates, did not fail to connect the dots in the correct threatening picture, but he dismissed it as too improbable.
In 1976 president Ford agreed to have two teams conduct a parallel analysis of all intelligence the USA had about the military capabilities of the Soviet Union. Team A consisted of the professional experts of the CIA. Team B was deliberately composed from people outside the intelligence community: Among the names associated with this effort, we encounter Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle. Both teams were given full access to the same information. Needless to say, a completely different picture was produced by the two teams. It is perhaps unsurprising, given the involvement of the people mentioned above in the 2003 intelligence fiasco about Iraqi WMD, that Team B's specific claims about Soviet weapons systems later turned out to be "all wrong. All of them." Yet these people had the same dots to connect. The difference was generated by their assessment of which patterns were the most valuable ones. Team B started from the assumption that worst-case scenarios deserved more credence, because Soviet intentions were hostile. That turned out to be a wretchedly poor criterion, both in 1976 and in 2003.
Paranoia is a poor guide in such matters. Occam's Razor may be a better one. R.V Jones, who provided Churchill with information about German weapon systems during WWII, advised his successors in 1947 that "You will find yourself confronted with many frightening bogies conjured up by the agile imaginations of men often at higher levels than yourself. You will be unable to lay all these bogies at once, because to prove a negative case is one of the most difficult of intelligence exercises. But you must find the simplest, commonsense hypothesis and stick to it until a fresh fact proves you wrong, however eminent an authority is attached to another view." Occam's Razor has the disadvantage that it does not weigh possible scenarios for risk. Clearly an interpretation that is only moderately likely but carries a very high risk, deserves to be investigated. But it is all too easy to dream up scenarios that combine astronomically high risk with vanishingly low probability --Hollywood script writers do so all the time-- and Occam may at least help us to eliminate these.
The big question today is how the analysis of intelligence can be improved. In the USA, the post 9/11 analysis suggested a bureaucratic solution: The office of the DNI, or Director of National Intelligence. More than anything else this marked a phase in the long struggle between the various civilian and military intelligence agencies, which were united in disunity by making them all report to the DNI. Characteristically, if the Director is a civilian then the Principal Deputy Director is required to be military officer, or the other way around. That this would not actually improve the situation much should have been obvious, and it probably made things worse by adding even more bureaucratic layers between analysts and policy makers. Such layers don't just pass information, but they rewrite, reinterpret, edit, summarize, and filter. When an intelligence analysis that was prepared by a professional who had the facts at hand, passes through the hands of a number of amateurs who don't, information is inevitably lost.
There is tendency to regard intelligence analysis as an arcane practice, as complex and secretive as the ritual of some eccentric sect. This bans professionals to quiet back rooms, where members of arcane sects belong, while the levers of interpretation and power remain comfortably in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians. This situation is harmful and unnecessary. To get accurate and relevant intelligence in a timely manner, it needs to be handled by professionals. There is nothing particularly novel about this: Since the 19th century, it has been military practice has been that every operational commander had an intelligence officer on his staff.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Blahnik
I am reading Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee, an interesting and thought provoking book. Published in 1991, it already shows the lines of thought that he expanded in his later works.
One of Diamond's less convincing ideas --at least to me-- is that the human propensity to abuse drugs is an extension of some forms of animal behavior or evolution that are also "counter-productive" -- or appear to be on first sight. As examples, Diamond mentions the beautiful but cumbersome feathers that male birds of paradise grow to impress the females, and "stotting", a demonstrative form of jumping adopted by gazelles and other four-legged animals to demonstrate their strength and health, and presumably discourage predators. The reasoning is that behavior that seems to waste energy and put an animal at greater risk, can be beneficial because of the impression it makes on others. The implicit message is "Do you see what I can get away with?"
But Diamond seems to jump too far when he seeks to explain drug abuse in this way. Certainly, young men are often driven to use alcohol, tobacco and other drugs by a desire to impress their peers. But I have never heard of animal species that routinely consume intoxicating substances for this purpose, although I have heard of isolated incidents of intoxicated animals. I have never seen the hypothetical David Attenborough sequence in which male birds eat toxic seeds until their heads spin, and the female chooses to mate with the one that waggles least -- or the last one standing. And this cannot be from lack of opportunity, for nature contains plenty of suitable substances.
That is not to say that there are no human equivalents of the feathers of the bird of paradise, but in this festive period, it is easily observed that humans differ in an unusual way: In our species, females wear the colorful plumage. Obviously there are very important cultural factors, because even European male dress once used to be far more colorful than it is today, at least for those who could afford it: An expression of rank and social order. Nevertheless it seems to be a distinct human feature that women dress to impress, and on consideration, it is not an illogical one. Male birds who invest heavily in exquisite plumage to demonstrate their good genes, are often those whose parenting role is limited to contributing their genes: Such a bad deal for the mother who has to rear the chicks, that biologists have wondered why sex exists at all. Therefore it is logical that the bird would have to go to extremely lengths to prove his genetic qualities. But the price we humans pay for our big brains, is being born prematurely and utterly helpless, demanding a far greater commitment from both parents if the child is to survive. It is a comparatively worse deal for the male, who has the sacrifice his ability to father a numerous offspring to look after a small number of children, some of which may not even be his. Therefore it would be logical that at least part of the burden of advertising good genes, has shifted to the females of our species.
If this is the case, an evolutionary theory of fashion might explain one of its eternal debates: That on the possibility to reconcile pragmatism with good looks. As Diamond explains, evolution may dictate that ostentatious display is only convincing if it has a real cost to the wearer, because a peacock train would not be evidence of its owners ability "to get away with it" if it was not a real handicap. In humans, men tend to be attracted by feminine fashions that are distinctly impractical, and at least to some degree, impractical equals sexy. Stiletto heels may be the closest equivalent that a bipedal species has for stotting. Of course, impracticality also equals status, and a bride's train has something in common with a peacock's. That is not to say that practical clothing cannot be beautiful, but the effect on others will never be quite the same.
Of course the principle is not limited to female fashion, and not only to relations between the sexes. In the Napoleonic wars, soldiers went to battle in uniforms that are an amazing absurdity in modern eyes. Some of this splendor may have been directed towards women (or at least towards recruits who joined up in the hope that their uniform would impress women) but evidently a lot of it served to impress other men, both ally and enemy. Bearskin hats, colorful breeches and gilded braid were adopted as the mark of an elite of soldiering, not only despite a conspicuous lack of relevance in combat, but because they were irrelevant. Me great warrior: I can get away with wearing silly hat.
Where does this leave drug abuse? To return to birds, it makes sense to me that hens would evolve to prefer males with bright colors, but not those with a strong head for drink. The females can pass on the genes for bright colors in males without a too large cost to themselves, because they don't have to carry these advertising colors, and even if a larger number of males get eaten by predators, enough will remain to ensure the survival of the species. But passing on genes that lead to a preference for consuming brain-addling substances seems much more dangerous.
Is this too different in humans? It is possible that for a species that is so dependent on its brain as ours, there were evolutionary forces that opened the door to tolerating some use of mind-altering substances. Our survival depended not only on our intellect, but also on our sophisticated ability to communicate, on a complex system of emotions, and our ability to innovate. It is possible that even in stone age cultures, groups of humans that indulged in social drinking --or even in religious rituals involving hallucinogenics-- had more cohesion and a better chance of survival than those that did not. Thus we could have developed and retained genetic factors that makes us vulnerable to substance abuse, without requiring any precedent in the animal world. The fact that we tend to be more tolerant (regardless of the real medical risks) of drugs that are perceived to have a social function, such as alcohol and tobacco, suggest that the origin of our vulnerability may lie there.
One of Diamond's less convincing ideas --at least to me-- is that the human propensity to abuse drugs is an extension of some forms of animal behavior or evolution that are also "counter-productive" -- or appear to be on first sight. As examples, Diamond mentions the beautiful but cumbersome feathers that male birds of paradise grow to impress the females, and "stotting", a demonstrative form of jumping adopted by gazelles and other four-legged animals to demonstrate their strength and health, and presumably discourage predators. The reasoning is that behavior that seems to waste energy and put an animal at greater risk, can be beneficial because of the impression it makes on others. The implicit message is "Do you see what I can get away with?"
But Diamond seems to jump too far when he seeks to explain drug abuse in this way. Certainly, young men are often driven to use alcohol, tobacco and other drugs by a desire to impress their peers. But I have never heard of animal species that routinely consume intoxicating substances for this purpose, although I have heard of isolated incidents of intoxicated animals. I have never seen the hypothetical David Attenborough sequence in which male birds eat toxic seeds until their heads spin, and the female chooses to mate with the one that waggles least -- or the last one standing. And this cannot be from lack of opportunity, for nature contains plenty of suitable substances.
That is not to say that there are no human equivalents of the feathers of the bird of paradise, but in this festive period, it is easily observed that humans differ in an unusual way: In our species, females wear the colorful plumage. Obviously there are very important cultural factors, because even European male dress once used to be far more colorful than it is today, at least for those who could afford it: An expression of rank and social order. Nevertheless it seems to be a distinct human feature that women dress to impress, and on consideration, it is not an illogical one. Male birds who invest heavily in exquisite plumage to demonstrate their good genes, are often those whose parenting role is limited to contributing their genes: Such a bad deal for the mother who has to rear the chicks, that biologists have wondered why sex exists at all. Therefore it is logical that the bird would have to go to extremely lengths to prove his genetic qualities. But the price we humans pay for our big brains, is being born prematurely and utterly helpless, demanding a far greater commitment from both parents if the child is to survive. It is a comparatively worse deal for the male, who has the sacrifice his ability to father a numerous offspring to look after a small number of children, some of which may not even be his. Therefore it would be logical that at least part of the burden of advertising good genes, has shifted to the females of our species.
If this is the case, an evolutionary theory of fashion might explain one of its eternal debates: That on the possibility to reconcile pragmatism with good looks. As Diamond explains, evolution may dictate that ostentatious display is only convincing if it has a real cost to the wearer, because a peacock train would not be evidence of its owners ability "to get away with it" if it was not a real handicap. In humans, men tend to be attracted by feminine fashions that are distinctly impractical, and at least to some degree, impractical equals sexy. Stiletto heels may be the closest equivalent that a bipedal species has for stotting. Of course, impracticality also equals status, and a bride's train has something in common with a peacock's. That is not to say that practical clothing cannot be beautiful, but the effect on others will never be quite the same.
Of course the principle is not limited to female fashion, and not only to relations between the sexes. In the Napoleonic wars, soldiers went to battle in uniforms that are an amazing absurdity in modern eyes. Some of this splendor may have been directed towards women (or at least towards recruits who joined up in the hope that their uniform would impress women) but evidently a lot of it served to impress other men, both ally and enemy. Bearskin hats, colorful breeches and gilded braid were adopted as the mark of an elite of soldiering, not only despite a conspicuous lack of relevance in combat, but because they were irrelevant. Me great warrior: I can get away with wearing silly hat.
Where does this leave drug abuse? To return to birds, it makes sense to me that hens would evolve to prefer males with bright colors, but not those with a strong head for drink. The females can pass on the genes for bright colors in males without a too large cost to themselves, because they don't have to carry these advertising colors, and even if a larger number of males get eaten by predators, enough will remain to ensure the survival of the species. But passing on genes that lead to a preference for consuming brain-addling substances seems much more dangerous.
Is this too different in humans? It is possible that for a species that is so dependent on its brain as ours, there were evolutionary forces that opened the door to tolerating some use of mind-altering substances. Our survival depended not only on our intellect, but also on our sophisticated ability to communicate, on a complex system of emotions, and our ability to innovate. It is possible that even in stone age cultures, groups of humans that indulged in social drinking --or even in religious rituals involving hallucinogenics-- had more cohesion and a better chance of survival than those that did not. Thus we could have developed and retained genetic factors that makes us vulnerable to substance abuse, without requiring any precedent in the animal world. The fact that we tend to be more tolerant (regardless of the real medical risks) of drugs that are perceived to have a social function, such as alcohol and tobacco, suggest that the origin of our vulnerability may lie there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)