Author: Darin

Analysis in the Intelligence Community

The declassified Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 203 outlines the Directorate of National Intelligence’s desires for an analytically sound workforce. When I worked as an intelligence community (IC) analyst, I wore a laminate with the following analytic standards outlined:

  • Objectivity
  • Independent of political considerations
  • Timeliness
  • Based on all available sources of intelligence
  • Exhibits proper standards of analytic tradecraft

These five standards became a mantra for when I would produce anything–from an interoffice memo to an intelligence assessment. As a member of the IC, I was required to uphold these values.

These analytic values are good for career segments, though. I like to consider them when I am drafting psychology publications or even writing an email at work. I like to rearrange them to the acronym TOBIE.

While my work within the IC is classified, I did complete advanced training on these topics as well as serve on at least one joint-duty assignment.

Check your (implicit) biases

Yesterday, I attended a training put on by Dr. Rita Cameron Wedding, California State University, on the topic of implicit bias. To me, these trainings are like revival meetings: These trainings encourage me to be more empowered. As a social psychologist, I am aware of implicit biases, but I often do not take time to put them in check. To understand how to put implicit biases in check, we must first understand them.

Implicit biases are unexpressed stereotypes that can shape how we interact with or about other individuals. Most often, these are manifested in our interactions with people of different races, but we also inferences about others based on disabilities, gender, sexuality, weight, and even age.

For ease, let’s talk about implicit biases against pit bulls (the canine breed, not the rapper). Many of us believe pit bulls are vicious, have locking jaws, and are aggressive toward humans and other dogs. While I am sure there are pit bulls that are aggressive toward humans, this stereotype likely prevents me from adopting one.

Overt biases or discriminations are often illegal (e.g., Title VII). If pit bulls were covered under Title VII, I could be in trouble if I chose to adopt another, similar breed instead of a pit bull. Or, a pet store may get in trouble if they chose not to offer this breed.

Implicit biases, on the other hand, are unlegislatable. These biases influence how we interact with or think about the biased object. Suppose I am walking down a street and see a pit bull loose, I may, based on my implicit bias, cross the street to get some distance between me and the dog. I may also wince or stand with a close body posture when I incidentally meet a pit bull for the first time.

If we truly unpack this bias, we might be able to find a reason for my attitude and behavior toward pit bulls. I am conditioned against pit bulls based largely on anecdotal evidence (stories from the newspaper). Maybe I have had a bad experience with pit bulls in the past (I have not). Even if I have personally had a bad experience with a pit bull in the past, I certainly have not had a bad experience with all pit bulls. And I know, based upon multiple sources, not every pit bull is vicious or aggressive toward humans. I should really rethink my bias against pit bulls.

After I identify the bias, I need to find a way to counteract it. How? There are several ways to start this process:

  1. Become aware of your own implicit biases. A great way to do this is to complete the Implicit Associations Test. There are several versions of this test but it measures subtle response timing differences to identify biases.
  2. Reflect on your own biases. This takes time and requires you to slow down. When you are approached by an individual who is different, you must take time to actively think about what you may be doing to further this implicit bias.
  3. Autopsy your interactions. In order to learn from your past, you must take time to review what you may have done in a situation and why that may not have been the best way. I do this through journaling.

While technology has made us faster, we definitely need to take some time to slow down to ensure we are not being biased against others.

Learning from Other Countries about CVE

If you are going to read one article regarding countering violent extremism (CVE), this is the one I would recommend. Eric Rosand unpacks CVE strategies of Australia, Canada, and the US. He then provides two recommendations for the US:

  1. Invest in and empower community-led efforts using funding from non-security/law enforcement agencies;
  2. Be precise and judicious regarding public discourse on violent extremism;
  3. Build trust with communities by using proper framing and terminology;
  4. Involve non-security/law enforcement agencies in all aspects of CBE work;
  5. Invest and mobilize resources/expertise to develop individual programs;
  6. Share information regarding best practices and other information; and,
  7. Pursue a federalized approach to counter violence.

While no country or CVE approach is going to be perfect, this is a great start at improving existing systems.