Incertidumbres del análisis dimensional de la inteligencia

  1. Payá Santos, Claudio Augusto
  2. Delgado Morán, Juan Jose
Journal:
URVIO: Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios de Seguridad

ISSN: 1390-4299

Year of publication: 2017

Issue Title: Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios de Seguridad (Diciembre-mayo)

Issue: 21

Pages: 225-239

Type: Article

DOI: 10.17141/URVIO.21.2017.2962 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: URVIO: Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios de Seguridad

Abstract

Due to the particular characteristics of the world in which we find ourselves, intelligence analysis becomes especially important. This paper discusses how the human mind works in intelligence analysis, focusing on uncertainty, trial ratings, judgments under pressure and time constraints, analyzing how the structure of our mental machinery influences and constrict intelligence analysis. We will deal with the functioning of the human mind, and what limitations it finds by focusing on how these cognitive characteristics affect intelligence analysts when they are not based on biased facts; as well as the impact of time and pressure on the accuracy of results.

Bibliographic References

  • BEEBE, S.M. Y PHERSON, R.H. (2012). Cases in Intelligence Analysis: Structured Analytic Techniques in Action. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ.
  • BETTS, R.K. (1978). Analysis, war, and decision: Why intelligence failures are inevitable. World Politics, 31 (1), 61–89.
  • BETTS, R.K. (2007). Two Faces of Intelligence Failure: September 11 and Iraq’s Missing WMD. Political Science Quarterly, 122 (4), 585-606.
  • BRUNER, J.S Y POSTMAN, L. (1949). On The Perception of Incongruity: A Paradigm. Journal of Personality J Personality, 18 (2), 206-223.
  • BUGELSKI, B.R, Y ALAMPAY, D.A. (1961). The role of frequency in developing perceptual sets. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 15, 205-211.
  • CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA) Documents. (2009). A Tradecraft Primer: Structured Analytic Techniques for Improving Intelligence Analysis. Washington D.C.: US Government.
  • CLAUSEWITZ, C, V., On War, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1974, pp. 140-147
  • CHASE, W.G. Y SIMON, H.A. (1973). Perception in Chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4 (1), 55-81.
  • ELSTER, J. (1990). Tuercas y tornillos, una introducción a los conceptos básicos de las ciencias sociales. Barcelona: Gedisa.
  • EVANS, J. Y STANOVICH, K.E. (2013). Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8 (3), 223-241. DOI: 10.1177/1745691612460685
  • FISCHHOFF, B. Y CHAUVIN, C. (2011). Intelligence Analysis. Behavioral and Social Scientific Fundations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  • FITZSIMMONS, M. (2006). The Problem of Uncertainty in Strategic Planning. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, 48 (4), 131-146.
  • GIGERENZER, G. Y SELTEN, R. (2001). Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. Cambridge, MA:MIT.
  • GODSON, R. Y WIRTZ, J.J. (2000). Strategic Denial and Deception. International Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence, 13 (4), 424-37.
  • HASTORF, A.H. Y CANTRIL, H. (1954). Selective Perception: They saw a game: A case study. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49 (1), 129-134.
  • HEUER, R.J., (1999). Psychology of intelligence analysis. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency.
  • HEUER, R.J. Y PHERSON, R.H. (2011). Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis. Washington D.C.: CQ Press.
  • IWAI, K. (1981). Disequilibrium Dynamics: A theoretical analysis of inflation and unemployment. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
  • JERVIS, R. (1976). Perception and Misperception in International Politics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  • KAHNEMAN, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. E-pub.
  • KAHNEMAN, D. Y TVERSKY A. (1974). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Science, 185 (4157), 1124–1131.
  • KUGRANSKY, A.W. Y WEBSTER, D.M. (1996). Motivated Closing of the Mind: "Seizing" and "Freezing'. Psychological Review, 103 (2), 263-283.
  • KUMAR, B., KANNA, B. Y KUMAR, S. (2011). The pitfalls of premature closure: clinical decision-making in a case of aortic dissection. BMJ Case Reports, 2011: p. bcr0820114594.
  • PLOUS, S. (1993). The Psychology of Judgement and Decision Making. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • RUSSEL, RUSSELL, J.A. (2006). Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East: Directions and Policy Options in the New Century. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • SIMON, H.A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69 (1), 99-118.
  • SIMON, H.A. (1957). Models of Man. New York: Wiley.
  • STANOVICH, K. E. Y WEST, R. (2002). Individual difference in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? In: T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and D.
  • Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (pp. 421–440). New York: Cambridge UP.
  • TREVERTON, G.F. (2005). Making Sense of Transnational Threats: Workshop Reports. Santa Monica. California, USA. RAND Corporation.
  • TVERSKY, A. & KAHNEMAN D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185, 1124-31.
  • WASTELL, C.A. (2010). Cognitive Predispositions and Intelligence Analyst Reasoning. International Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence, 23 (3), 449-460. DOI: 10.1080/08850601003772802
  • WILSON, G.T. Y ABRAMS, D. (1977). Effects of alcohol on social anxiety and physiological arousal. Cognitive Research and Therapy, 1 (3), 195-210
  • WOHLSTETTER, R. (1962). Pearl Harbor; Warning and Decision. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP
Data source: Dialnet