US Slighty Less Corrupt Than Uruguay, Slightly More Corrupt Than Chile (Transparency International)

http://www.transparency.org

Transparency International (TI), the anti-corruption watchdog, has just issued their 2010 findings regarding perceptions of government corruption worldwide.  The map to the right gives you a feel for the findings but to get the full story (as well as maps you can actually read, you have to go to TI's website.

The US dropped to 24th (of 178) for its worst showing ever on the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). Previously, the worst performance was in 2006-07 when the US came in 20th. The best the US has ever placed was in 2001-02 when it was 16th.

Since the CPI has grown in terms of number of countries, perhaps a better way to look at a country is by way of the absolute score. Even here, though, the US has seen some degradation over the years. In 2001, the score was 7.6 (out of 10 - high numbers are better) while the 2010 score was just 7.1.

Still, the US is in the top 13% of the world. While there are a few seemingly counter-intuitive results (as my headline suggests), most of the least corrupt countries are in the OECD. The most corrupt places on the planet continue to be concentrated in Africa (Sudan, Chad, Burundi, Somalia) and Central Asia (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan). Both Afghanistan (with a 1.4 out of 10) and Iraq (with a 1.5) are listed among the most corrupt countries on earth.

According to TI, "the surveys and assessments used to compile the index include questions relating to bribery of public officials, kickbacks in public procurement, embezzlement of public funds, and questions that probe the strength and effectiveness of public sector anti-corruption efforts."  A very complete run-down of their methods and sources is available on their website.

"Effective Intelligence Analysis Is A Concept-driven Activity Rather Than A Data-driven One" (DTIC)

"The most telling result of the research is the clear implication that intelligence analysis is conceptually driven as opposed to data driven. What is critical is not just the data collected, but also what is added to those data in interpreting them via conceptual models in the analyst's store of knowledge."

In other words, how you think is more important than what you know.  This is one of the big take-aways from Philip Tetlock's wonderful Expert Political Judgment and you would be forgiven if you thought I was just touting his 2005 book again.

No, the quote above is from a 1979(!) INSCOM sponsored study into cognitive processes in intelligence analysis (called, amazingly enough, Cognitive Processes In Intelligence Analysis:  A Descriptive Model And Review Of The Literature.  It, and its companion piece, Human Processes In Intelligence Analysis:  Phase 1 Overview are available through DTIC or you can download them here and here from Scribd.  I wish I could say that I found them on my own but they come to me courtesy of Dalene Duvenage, who teaches intel analysis in South Africa, and the always useful IAFIE mailing list).

While much of the content in these two papers is probably more easily accessed by way of Dick Heuer's Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, there are some new gems here. One of my favorites is the reason for the studies.  

According to Dr. Joseph Zeidner, Chief Psychologist for the US Army in 1979, and MG William Rolya, the Commander of INSCOM at that time, "Intelligence collection systems have proliferated over the past several years, increasing in complexity and in volume of output.  However, there has been no corresponding improvement in the ability of intelligence personnel to analyze this flood of data."  Sound familiar?

Another interesting tidbit comes from the Human Processes paper which lays out the personality attributes of the ideal analyst.  These include:

• Is a technologist
• Is either a specialist or a generalist but not both
• Is an "information entrepreneur"
• Is comfortable with changing roles
• Can communicate (oral and written)
• Is a detective
• Is imaginative
• Is self-starting
• Has a profession (Intelligence analysis)

These criteria seem to strike a chord as well.  All in all, both papers are worth a look, if only because they seem to prove that the more things change, the more they stay the same...

The Gartner Hype Cycle: An Interesting Way To Think About The "Next Big Thing" In Tech (Gartner.com)

Every year I look forward to seeing the latest editions of a number of regularly published analytic reports. The DNI's Annual Threat Assessment and Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index fall into this category. Even the Aon Terrorism Threat Map, while not an annual publication, satisfies my itch for a regular update on the state of affairs within that functional area.

When it comes to technology trends, however, the best such product I know of is Gartner's annual "Hype Cycle" chart. Gartner is a large and well respected research company that tracks all sorts of technologies.

Their experience has been that new technologies follow a more or less predictable pattern over time that is best measured by the amount of "hype" (i.e. inflated expectations) associated with a particular technology. You can see the current version of the hype cycle below (and can get more detailed information about the cycle, the methodology and additional findings at Gartner's website):

For example, if you look at the image above you can see that biometric identification has exited the "trough of disillusionment" and has entered the "slope of enlightenment". For many inside the intel community, biometric devices are old hat but what the hype cycle seems to be saying is that these technologies are about to become old hat for all of us...

One of the surprises for me was to see predictive analytics so far out on the hype cycle. Of course, then I think about Hunch's Predict-o-matic (available only to Facebook users, unfortunately, and which scared the be-jeesus out of me...) or articles like this one and I understand exactly what they mean.

Even more interesting are those items at the top of the hype cycle; stuff like cloud computing, 3D flat panel displays and augmented reality. If Gartner is right, then, in the very near future, we should start to see mainstream news articles trashing these technologies not as the "next big thing" but as the most recent tech flop.

My favorite part of the hype cycle is the stuff entering in from the left hand side, the technologies that are just beginning to climb the first steep curve of unreasonable expectations. Here we find the way-out technologies -- autonomous vehicles and computer-brain interfaces.

I like to point out to students that these are the technologies that they will have to deal with over the course of their careers; that they will fight with their children not over whether they get earrings in their ears but whether they will get chips in their brains.

Mercyhurst Offers Online Cyberthreat Analysis Course!

Billy Rios

The Mercyhurst College Institute Of Intelligence Studies is now accepting applications and inquiries for a 3 credit online graduate course in Cyberthreat Analysis.  It is scheduled to begin on 29 NOV 2010 and will end on or about 23 FEB 2011.

The course is open to anyone with a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university and an interest in the topic.  The course is designed as an online, standalone, introductory graduate-level course -- there are are no prerequisites.

 The instructor for the course is Billy Rios (see picture).  Billy is currently a Senior Security Researcher with Google and has taught the course for us in the past.  Before Google, he was the Security Program Manager for Internet Explorer and one of authors of the book, Hacking:  The Next Generation.  Billy has also served as a Marine Corps officer in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

According to the course description:  "This course explores the relatively new discipline of cyberthreat analysis at a basic level, introducing students to the methodology of investigation, the threat environment (cyberspace), some of the online tools used by analysts, and their application in real world examples. Students will be introduced to the key concepts, tools, and terminologies used by professionals in the field and apply what they learn in lab exercises that model real-world events."

Our recent informal survey of hiring managers indicated that cyberthreat analysis is still one of the hottest areas of hiring in intel.  This course is a great way to get your feet wet if you are looking to expand, improve or add depth to your professional portfolio as an intelligence analyst.

If you or anyone you know is interested, please have them contact Linda Bremmer at lbremmer at mercyhurst dot edu or call 814 824 2170.

The Perfect Mid-term (GDMAG.com)

We are giving mid-term exams here at Mercyhurst this week.  I don't think much of traditional methods for testing student knowledge and was, therefore, intrigued by a quote I recently found in a much longer article on assessment:  

"Good tests make the student feel smart or skilled, if not both.  They make the student feel like they're applying what they've learned.  The puzzle inherent in a test should flow naturally from the existing, well-established content of the course.  While students should feel like they can bring their existing skills to the task at hand, they should also feel like a suitable challenge has been placed in front of them."

I like that.  Imagine a test so well-designed that the student would actually appreciate the challenge the test presented!   The implied lesson here is that tests ought to be about the learning and not about the grade, about mastering a body of knowledge and not about punching a ticket.

Many of you probably agree with me that such a test would be one worth taking.  You probably also think that such tests are impossible to design.  I have to beg to differ.  Such "tests" are routinely developed by a very unique group of people -- game designers.

See, I lied before.  The quote above is not from an educator, it is from Game Developer Magazine.  The article it was taken from is called "Make Better Bosses" by Damion Schubert (For those of you unfamiliar with the concept of a "boss" in games, I would refer you to the Wikipedia entry on bosses).  The original version of Schubert's article read like this:

"Good boss fights make the player feel smart or skilled, if not both.  They make the player feel like they're applying what they've learned.  The puzzle inherent in a boss fight should flow naturally from the existing, well-established mechanics of the game.  While players should feel like they can bring their existing skills to the task at hand, they should also feel like a suitable challenge has been placed in front of them."

All I did was replace "boss" with "test" and "player" with "student".  What really struck me was how obvious the comparison was when I first read it.  Of course, it might just be me (I have spent a good bit of time thinking about games and education over the last year) but I am hardly the first person to make the connection between tests of knowledge in a classroom and the challenges posed by most games  (See the short interview with Prof. Gee below).  It seems like something worth thinking about...