The Enemy of Critical Thinking: Ourselves

By our very nature, humans are subject to cognitive traps. This is no different with homeland security professionals. Even the smartest individuals in organizations and academia are vulnerable to flawed thinking because that is the way we are wired. Left unchecked, these cognitive traps will eventually lead to weaknesses in our academic rigor, gaps in our organization’s policies, and holes in our security. The first step in overcoming these cognitive traps is understanding that we are all susceptible to them. But then what? We need definitive solutions to overcome the gaps in our critical thinking.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is the propensity for people to look for ways to verify that their thought process is correct. It is much easier for someone to question another person’s thoughts, but are more reluctant to question their own. We seek to want to be right; it is therefore difficult to play your own devil’s advocate. Confirmation bias is an especially dangerous concept, especially if the decision maker does not recognize that they are subject to it. If we are only seeking to support our hypothesis, we will be totally unaware of the counterpoints, which may prove stronger than the support for our hypothesis. Raymond Nickerson notes that governments are especially susceptible to confirmation bias. In his article Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises, he notes that the U.S. remained involved in the Vietnam War even “…despite countless evidences that it was a lost cause from the beginning…once a policy has been adopted and implemented by a government, all subsequent activity of that government becomes focused on justifications of that policy.”

In order to overcome confirmation bias at the individual level, homeland security professionals needs to seek out the help of their colleagues. It is important that the person susceptible to confirmation bias not look for people who think like they do. Rather it is important to find people who will challenge your thinking. This is more than just an exercise in looking for spelling and grammatical errors. The individual should be charged with attacking the argument, looking for gaps and holes, challenging the logic of the argument. In other words, ask your colleague to try and destroy your argument, before the intended audience of your academic paper or policy recommendation does.

Mirror Imaging

Another dangerous trap policy makers fall into is the tendency to assume that our potential adversaries think like we do. This thought process, mirror imaging, leads to weak hypotheses because often times, the adversary approaches situations with different viewpoints from our own. “The frequent assumption that they do [think like us] is what Adm. David Jeremiah, after reviewing the Intelligence Community failure to predict India’s nuclear weapons testing, termed the “everybody-thinks-like-us mind-set.”

Many homeland security professionals have a need to be able to think like their adversaries in order to anticipate how they might react to the organizations’ operations, tactics, and policies. However, anticipating your adversaries’ reactions is a useless exercise if your framing the situation from your perspective, biases, and experiences. The easiest way to overcome mirror imaging is to bring in a person who may have at one been a part of your adversary’s in group. This is usually a rare circumstance, and can actually be dangerous in the event that the person is “playing both sides.” Another option is to bring in someone who is an expert on your adversary. You should proceed with caution though, because “experts” tend to get it wrong too. A third option would be to charge individuals within your organization to use trusted analytic techniques such as Social Identity Theory to study your adversary, and provide input as to how that adversary would respond to your organization’s operations, tactics, and policies.

Groupthink

Groupthink is a cognitive challenge born out of the need for members of a group to reach consensus and maintain team unity. There are several factors that can lead to groupthink, which may result in hindering progress in comprehending a multifarious situation. Groupthink can be very dangerous in a situation that demands contrarian views, such as security policy development. In an article titled Preventing “Groupthink,” Ben Dattner noted that groupthink was a major contributor in the Bay of Pigs disaster. Dattner mentions that “Kennedy wanted to overthrow Castro and his subordinates knew it…Kennedy caused his subordinates to come up with a plan that pleased him rather than one that made the most strategic sense.”

At the group level, homeland security organizations should proactively seek ways to overcome being subject to groupthink. This could be performed through either formal or non-formal means. In a non-formal approach, teams can ask that individuals outside the culture of that team be brought in to challenge the group, and when necessary, be the voice of dissent. A more formal approach would include the introduction of structured analytic techniques such as red teaming. Red teaming is a variety of methodologies used to identify and eliminate security gaps in an organization at the strategic, tactical, or operational level. Red teams use structured analytic techniques to break through a “blue force’s” defenses. In a military context, a red team might be charged with penetrating a military unit’s established perimeter in a military exercise to discover weaknesses in the perimeter. Or, a red team might be used to provide an adversarial perspective on how to “poke holes” in a unit’s battle plans. At the policy or strategic level, red teams are typically charged with challenging assumptions, playing devil’s advocate, or using other methods to discover vulnerabilities in an organization’s policies and strategies.

Although not all inclusive, the above are very common cognitive traps that we are subject to as individuals and organizations. There is no single “right way” to overcome any of them, but hopefully this article provided a starting point with which to admit susceptibility, and begin the process of seeking help from trusted colleagues. It is especially important for those within the homeland security enterprise to find ways to combat cognitive traps when developing plans, policies, and procedures.