Rethinking the training of intelligence analysts

Abstract

Despite intense scrutiny and promised fixes resulting from intelligence ‘transformation’ efforts, erroneous analytic assessments persist and continue to dominate news coverage of the US intelligence community. Existing analytic training teaches analysts about common cognitive biases and then aims to correct them with structured analytic techniques. On its face, this approach is eminently reasonable; on close inspection, incomplete and imbalanced. Current training is anchored in a mid-twentieth century understanding of psychology that focuses on checking over-confidence and rigidity but ignores the problems of under-confidence and excessive volatility. Moreover it has never been validated against objective benchmarks of good judgment. We propose a new approach: (a) adopting scientifically validated content and regularly testing training to avoid institutionalizing new dogmas; (b) incentivizing analysts to view training guidelines as means to the end of improved accuracy, not an end in itself.     

Rethinking Dignity

The concept of dignity is widely debated as to its efficacy as a ground upon which to base respect particularly in relation to human rights. Traditional concepts of inherent dignity associate dignity with the possession of rationality and autonomy, which consequently excludes non-rational humans from being viewed as possessing inherent dignity and therefore equal and inherent worth. This paper offers a theory of inherent dignity based on an account of a common humanity within which all humans might be seen as possessing inherent worth and, therefore, deserving of being recognized and respected equally as ends in themselves. The theory is based on the communal practice and expectation of moral accountability, a practice that can be viewed as taking place universally both between and within human communities.     

Rethinking the epistemic case against epistocracy

ABSTRACT

In this article, I focus on arguments which suggest that disenfranchising persons on the grounds of incompetence is likely to produce epistemically sub-optimal decisions. I suggest three ways in which such arguments can be strengthened. First, I argue that they can be untethered from the controversial ‘best judge’ principle, according to which each person is the best judge of his or her own interests. Second, I suggest that epistemic arguments against epistocracy are currently insensitive to the nature of the groups that would be excluded on the grounds of incompetence. Such arguments would remain unchanged were epistocracy to disenfranchise privileged persons rather than already disadvantaged persons. I argue that a stronger critique of epistocracy ought to focus on distinctive epistemic obstacles faced by socially privileged persons. Third, I argue that current epistemic critics of epistocracy ignore how its basis for exclusion entails consequences that are relevant to our assessment of its justifiability. Their criticisms would, for instance, remain the same had this exclusion been brought about in a random manner. Instead, I emphasise the deliberative costs that follow from the exclusion of disadvantaged groups qua incompetent.     

Rethinking Leadership for the Public Sector

Leadership and management are best thought of as a matter of competencies. Or are they? The paper challenges the current orthodoxy in Australia on this question, and suggests that leadership and management need to be regarded as reflecting opposing values. The paper also distinguishes between charismatic and collective forms of leadership, and proposes the latter as likely to be of greater value in a public sector context. A challenge for public sector organisations is how to strike and maintain a suitable balance between management for ongoing operations and leadership for deep–reaching change. Strategies for developing collective leadership capability are suggested.     

After Bagehot: Rethinking the Constitution

'Rethinking the constitution' surveys the political and cultural impact of Bagehot's 1867 strategy for the survival of an elitist state in a democracy. Also looks at the recent erosion of the conditions for Bagehot, and asks what the next major reinterpretation of the constitution will be. Assesses Gordon Brown's desire to make the constitution democratic while at the same time bolstering national identity and pursuing free market policies.     

Rethinking early intervention

With Bernard Spodek, he edited Early Childhood Education: Issues and Highlights.He has written or edited more than 30 other books and contributed more than 300 articles to educational, psychological, and practitioner journals on such topics as giftedness and talent development, educational productivity, international comparisons, instruction, and parent education.     

对强制证人出庭作证的再思考

证人证言作为法定证据之一,在认定事实方面起着重要作用。然而在司法实践中,证人出庭率低、甚至拒绝作证等现象日益严重,已影响到人民法院审判活动的公正和顺利进行。证人出庭作证问题已成为诉讼庭审制度改革中最突出、最难以解决的问题之一。在目前的社会实际状态下,强制证人出庭作证不仅不可能提高证人出庭作证率,反而会导致证人出庭作证关系的恶化发展。从人的本性、社会环境传统、人权保障以及法理等层面对强制证人出庭作证制度展开思考,以期纠正当前一味强制证人出庭作证之风。     

Rethinking regional planning

He is a past visiting scholar at Rutgers’ Center for Urban Policy Research, where he did research for this article. He has written widely on topics of regional and environmental land use.     

重新思考NGOs问责

NGOs问责的涵义可以从控制-交待、外部-内部、过程-机制三个不同的视角来理解。这就形塑了不同的NGOs问责型态,如等级问责和整体问责、功能问责和战略问责、外部控制和内部回应为基础的问责矩阵等等。这些问责型态不仅在理论上存在瑕疵,而且导致不合理的NGOs问责实践。可以根据问责的来源和问责关注的期限这两个维度建立一个整合的NGOs问责框架。该框架包含四种问责型态:效益问责、使命问责、结果问责和发展问责。这个新的理论框架进一步发展了NGOs问责的涵义,同时能够帮助利益相关者调整观察NGOs活动的关注点以提升NGOs的问责性,也有助于NGOs看清不同的问责力量,并判断怎样才能对自身的行为负责。研究的主要局限在于,提出的理论框架是一般意义上的,在实际应用中需要根据不同的NGOs类型及其运行的外部环境对框架的内容和侧重点进行调整。     

Rethinking corporate restructuring

A giant wave of corporate restructuring has rolled through the global corporate landscape ever since the early 1980s, and to date there are still no signs of it slowing down. Much of the restructuring took place under the banner of increasing corporate financial performance, but a significant by‐product of the deep‐rooted organisational change it involves is additional strain on the organisation's relationships with employees, communities, taxpayers, governments and other stakeholders. This commentary paper first assesses four qualitatively different types of corporate restructuring and the corresponding techno‐rational explanations and justifications for their occurrence. Next, it demonstrates how these restructuring transactions can frustrate a firm's relationships with market and non‐market parties. It then goes beyond the techno‐rational perspective by discussing four types of public affairs instruments, and framing them as facilitating measures which companies can take to appease actors that have the potential to inhibit organisational restructuring efforts. The authors thus rethink corporate restructuring by focusing on the crucial role that public affairs activities can play in the management of the market and non‐market pressures associated with the redesign of organisational structures and portfolios. Copyright © 2004 Henry Stewart Publications