Copyright: Società Italiana di Storia Militare, 2024; Nadir Media Srl
L’approccio al mondo dell’intelligence, composto di pluralità tecniche e terminologiche, richiede una base di partenza per acquisire nozioni applicabili a un’indagine proficua tanto in sincronia quanto verso il futuro. In un mondo continuamente in evoluzione, teatro di avvenimenti dall’intrinseca complicazione, come i conflitti in atto, comprendere i fenomeni e padroneggiare conoscenze del mondo dell’intelligence, utili anche a ragionare su quanto attendersi dal futuro, diventa fondamentale. È indubbio che la miglior conoscenza sia da ricercare negli esperti del settore, coloro che quotidianamente si interfacciano con il carattere plurivoco degli eventi, operando in un settore in continuo mutamento e trasferendo nella praticità nozioni teoriche, tra cui la conoscenza delle strutture di interconnessione globale, il modus operandi degli attori e la natura di conflitti, passati e presenti. Ipso facto, i principali esponenti dell’attività d’intelligence diventano la fonte principale da interrogare per ottenere risposte complete.
How do you define intelligence in the cognitive domain?
I never delved deeply into the intelligence-mind problem. Defining intelligence is a slipper problem and, in my opinion, not necessarily very interesting. Moreover, there is too much talk about it, which shows that we are possibly hitting a wall. When I first read Turing and approached the philosophy of mind, I never believed there was much promise in that space (definition of intelligence) for many reasons. One reason is the significant confusion about what we can confidently claim to know versus what remains unknown or not fully understood from the neurobiological perspective. When Turing tackled the topic, he simply demonstrated that intelligence essentially boils down to performance when it can be concretely defined. In other words, if x produces y, and if a human would produce y in a manner that we, as humans, would deem intelligent, then x is intelligent (thus, the trick lies in constructing a transitive argument for comparison, etc., which is fair enough for programmers or pure logicians attempting to create some form of computing machine). Turing was very candid in setting limits to the thought experiment. I believe that intelligence pertains to a certain type of performance that necessitates specific properties at the causal level.
[I] If S produces x through I, where I has causal capacity such that x is not produced by chance and x achieve a solution for a given problem, then S is intelligent.
Since I started this blog, its motto was “All we need is philosophy… which is love for knowledge”. Naturally, it was a paraphrasis of Beatle’s song “All we need is love”, an over abused mantra. The irony is that the paraphrasis is almost untouched as philosophy was classically defined by Plato as love for knowledge (or wisdom, or whatever it increases human understanding): “all we need is love for knowledge” is what I would have sung if only I was a good songwriter. “All we need is love for knowledge” seems to be a far better and more universal creed, so much so that so great music composers such as the Beatles did not miss it. As it was said in a private conversation by one of the two editors of the esteemed Intelligence and National Security, this special issue was an act of love toward philosophy. As strange it may sound, as unlikely it could be in hour days, when everything is reduced to brutish emotions and useless sarcasm and cynicism, this is the truth.
What is the real ethical framework of an intelligence analyst? We addressed this question by presenting a group of civil and military intelligence analysts (N = 41), and a control group of non-professionals (N = 41), with a set of dilemmas depicting intelligence agents facing the decision whether to violate a deontological rule where that would benefit their work (ethics-of-intelligence dilemmas). Participants judged how much violating the rule was acceptable. Next, we measured participants’ individual differences in social dominance orientation (using the Social Dominance Orientation scale which measures the proclivity to endorse intergroup hierarchy and anti-egalitarianism), their deontological and utilitarian response tendencies (using classical moral dilemmas), and how much they value rule conformity, traditions, and safety and stability in the society (using the Value Survey). A multiple regression analysis revealed that, among all the factors, only social dominance significantly helped explain variability in intelligence analysts’ but not non-professionals’ resolutions of the ethics-of-intelligence dilemmas. Specifically, social dominance positively predicted the tendency to judge violating the deontological rule acceptable, possibly suggesting that analysts who show a stronger proclivity to desire their country or company to prevail over others are also more lenient toward deontological violations if these result in a greater good for the state or the company. For the first time in the open literature, we elucidated some key aspects of the real ethics of intelligence.
Pili, G. (2021). “Why HAL 9000 is not the future of intelligence analysis: Intelligence analysis in the 21st century.” The Journal of Intelligence, Conflict, and Warfare, 4(1), 40–60. https://doi.org/10.21810/jicw.v4i1.2566
Abstract
Intelligence analysis is a core function of the intelligence process, and its goal is to synthesize reliable information to assist decision-makers to take a course of action toward an uncertain future. There is no escape from uncertainty, friction, and the fog of war. Since the dawn of human history, the present moment has been experienced as unpredictable, and the challenge of determining the right future through sound decisions has always existed. Investing in new technology, continually touted as the answer for analytic troubles, seems far less difficult in the short run than trying to find consensus about a long-term vision. It is easier to develop a nuclear missile, for example, than to give a universal definition of peace, and this is what the history of the XX century was all about. While intelligence analysis is still a necessary tool for decision-makers, it is unclear who or what will perform this function in the future. Though the solution cannot be only technological, the current trajectory tells a different story whereby the human analysts are removed from their central position to make way for Artificial Intelligence.
When I was working on my recent three-fold research papers on intelligence analysis, I came across a journal article that fascinated me quite a lot since I’ve read the title. It was the case in which the content I read was exactly as good as my expectations (which are usually extremely high when they come to peer-review scientific papers). Indeed, since I started studying war theory and the philosophy of war, Clausewitz’s On War was mandatory reading. Interestingly, Clausewitz is inversely proportionally considered in intelligence and war studies. If he is one of the founding fathers of the modern understanding of war (and rightly so, notwithstanding many critics), he is almost entirely dismissed in the intelligence domain. Yes, true, he stated that intelligence is unreliable by nature, that the commander should avoid to trust intelligence (too much), and that uncertainty is inherently part of war and warfare… and so he couldn’t be said a big supporter of intelligence in general. Is this sufficient to discharge his work? So, when I read An Outline of a Clausewitzian Theory of IntelligenceI finally found a partial vindication of my long-lasting necessity to see Clausewitz better considered within the intelligence studies and, more broadly, intelligence. But even more importantly, in an age that prizes all that comes from the last technological invention but the human brain, it is always healthy to remember how our world is ultimately unpredictable and dominated by an intrinsic uncertainty. The efforts of the last seventy years were to prove that everything has its own place as if nature and human beings are only tiny cogged wheels, in spite of all suggested by history and by ordinary life (actually). Then, after such a reading, I almost felt obliged to contact Dr Lillbacka to have a deeper conversation about these topics. This interview is part of this discussion which, I hope, you will find as fascinating as insightful. In addition, I invite the readers to discover Lillbacka’s publications, which are as rich as rigorous. There is no question that not everything can be covered in a single interview but I hope you will find so much to think about prediction, friction, and uncertainty that, at least, you will be enriched as much as I did. It is then with my distinct pleasure to publish the interview on Scuola Filosofica – for those who don’t know it yet; it is one of the leading cultural blogs in Italy. In the name of Scuola Filosofica Team, our readers, and myself, Giangiuseppe Pili, Ralf: thank you!
I’m very happy to host Alessandro Giorgi’s interview on the intelligence operations beyond the Iron Curtain as the first one of 2021! Indeed, I had the pleasure to meet Alessandro several times, when he presented his amazing research on several topics. First, we meet in Milan (ah, I start to get old and feel a certain nostalgia!). He was presenting his (back then) last book on the Vietnam War, which is a passion of mine. I knew about the event because it was sponsored by the Italian Society of Military History, of which Alessandro and I are both members. It was presented in the “sanctuary” of Milanese military history, the Libreria di Storia Militare (a place that I love and I encourage anybody to discover). I was struck by Alessandro’s knowledge, rigor, and… passion. He is one of the best speakers I ever encountered. The second time we met was still in Milan when I first heard his research on intelligence operations beyond the Iron Curtain. And again, I was ruptured by his storytelling. Along with me, there was a young friend of mine. He is a young fighter. Alessandro’s speech so struck him that he felt the need to read more about the Cold War. Then I realized that Giorgi’s really able to reach the heart of anybody who has the pleasure to hear him speak. From that moment on, I was only confirmed about my opinion. And then, I was pleased he readily accepted being part of Intelligence & Interview. Without further ados, it is then with my distinct pleasure to publish the interview on Scuola Filosofica – for those who don’t know it yet; it is one of the leading cultural blogs in Italy. In the name of Scuola Filosofica Team, our readers, and myself, Giangiuseppe Pili, Alessandro: thank you!
1. Alessandro Giorgi, let’s start with the basics. How would you like to present yourself to the national and international readers and Philosophical School (Scuola Filosofica)?
Working – an age ago – to my monograph on the philosophy of war, I had the chance to read Ferdinando Angeletti’s paper. It was very perspicuous and well-written. Then, I decided to contact him to have feedback on a chapter of the book, “pure theory of war”, where I analyzed the normative component of the principles of war. Angeletti was then interested in the theory of games and its application to war (I hope to recall it correctly, but everybody knows my infallibility!). Naturally, it started a conversation, and the chapter improved by it (inspite of my alleged infallibility). By then, Angeletti and I had the opportunity to co-author a piece on terrorism during Brexit published by the Brexit institute (Dublin City University). Then, I discovered how a detailed, careful, and rigorous researcher Angeletti is, even more. Meanwhile, I discover, first, that Angeletti was part of the Italian Society of Military History (SISM, the readers still remember – yes!, I know it! – the recent Virgilio Ilari’s interview); second, that he founded an institute on terrorism and eversion studies. Then, I was glad to be part of it as a member. There are few people that I esteem so much as Ferdinando for his work and research. I hope, then, that the reader will discover more about IASTE, Institute of High Studies on Terrorism and Insurgency (Istituto di Alti Studi per il Terrorismo e l’Eversione – IASTE). Without further ados, it is then with my distinct pleasure to publish the interview on Scuola Filosofica – for those who don’t know it yet; it is one of the leading cultural blogs in Italy. In the name of Scuola Filosofica Team, our readers, and myself, Giangiuseppe Pili, Ferdinando: thank you!
Intelligence & Interview #23 approaches one of the most controversial ethical topics of intelligence and intelligence studies. Yes, I mean the blurred limit between interrogation and torture. In particular, torture is conceived as part of interrogation. Interrogation does not imply torture, theoretically and practically; however, torture is sometimes used as a tool for interrogators within intelligence contexts. This is true for totalitarian regimes, which do not have to justify their systematic use (though restrictions can be in place). This is sometimes the case for democracies. Even after Cesare Beccaria’s masterpiece, we are still debating if torture can be a tool for interrogators. Few scholars are now more familiar with this crucial topic than Dr Samantha Newbery, Reader at Salford University (Manchester).
I’m tremendously excited to publish this wonderful interview with Kira Vrist Rønn, senior lecturer at University College Copenhagen. Professor Vrist Rønn published extensively about the philosophy of intelligence. Specifically, she worked on the epistemology of intelligence and intelligence ethics. These two topics are indeed the core of “Intelligence & Interview N.20”. Though practically oriented, the intelligence studies include an important and – I would add – fundamental theoretical component. Intelligence theory is indeed crucial to understand the practical aspects of the intelligence profession. Is objectivity possible in intelligence analysis? What is intelligence? Is intelligence ethics possible, or is it an unbearable oxymoron? Is intelligence an art or a science? To reply to all these questions, we need to bring philosophical concepts to clarify what intelligence is. Professor Vrist Rønn was a pioneer in this research, and she authored and edited several works (see below). Given my long-lasting research interest in both epistemology and ethics of intelligence, I can only be thrilled by publishing this thought-provoking interview. Recently, Intelligence & Interview N.19 already touched on the epistemology of intelligence. But that was a starter, also considering the different main topics of that issue. This interview goes deeper on the epistemology and ethics of intelligence. Then, it is with my distinct pleasure to publish the interview on Scuola Filosofica – for those who don’t know it yet, it is one of the leading cultural blogs in Italy. In the name of Scuola Filosofica Team, our readers, and myself, Giangiuseppe Pili, Kira: thank you!
