3 ms·

The most interesting part of those reports is that they were not based on fabricated or false evidence. Most intelligence agencies in the world said it was ver

by nickff 10y ago

The most interesting part of those reports is that they were not based on fabricated or false evidence. Most intelligence agencies in the world said it was very likely that Iraq had some WMDs. This brings up many questions about what methods they used for estimating the likelihood, and what should have been the minimum level of certainty to trigger a military response. For answers to the first question, I suggest you read Tetlock's masterwork on prediction, "Superforecasting". I am still unsure what the answer is to the second question.

trendia 10y ago
Intelligence services didn't have bad intent, they had bad intel. Specifically, they used an informant (Curveball[0]) who was later discredited. However, this still supports my argument that Google's "fact-checking" algorithm will not tell us what's true or not, it will tell us what the prevailing belief is. But that's not what people want -- they want the truth. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
- nickff 10y ago
  Intelligence agencies usually rely on many unreliable sources, a few reliable ones, and interpretation of publicly available data; the interesting part is how they evaluate and interpret information from these different sources, which is one of the things Tetlock addresses. I am not sure that people actually want to know what is the truth; maybe one or two percent of the voters want to know the truth, but I very much doubt the number is much higher than that. People probably want to be told that what they believe is the truth when they go to these websites. There is a great deal of work on the subject of political ignorance (and self-deception), but I recommend the recent (and very readable) book "Against Democracy" by Jason Brennan for its summary of current evidence, and a proposed solution.
- handedness 10y ago
  Two issues come to mind there. The first is that some of the intel those agencies were acting on wasn't baseless. (See Operafion Avarice.) The other is that Hussein's deliberate strategy was to make the world believe he was in possession of WMDs. (Specifically Iran.) True or not, it worked. So whether it was suicide by cop using a real weapon or a realistic looking fake, it was ultimately still suicide by cop on a global scale. And the more we learn as things become declassified, the more it's looking like his position wasn't entirely a bluff. (Leaving aside the extraordinary incompetence displayed by SECDEF Rumsfeld, the WH, and numerous other senior officials.)
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    "extraordinary incompetence" This goes back to the great-great-etc grandparent. Was it actually bad intent? There were plenty of instances that certianly were, but overall?

by nickff 10y ago

trendia 10y ago

Intelligence services didn't have bad intent, they had bad intel. Specifically, they used an informant (Curveball[0]) who was later discredited. However, this still supports my argument that Google's "fact-checking" algorithm will not tell us what's true or not, it will tell us what the prevailing belief is. But that's not what people want -- they want the truth. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

nickff 10y ago
Intelligence agencies usually rely on many unreliable sources, a few reliable ones, and interpretation of publicly available data; the interesting part is how they evaluate and interpret information from these different sources, which is one of the things Tetlock addresses. I am not sure that people actually want to know what is the truth; maybe one or two percent of the voters want to know the truth, but I very much doubt the number is much higher than that. People probably want to be told that what they believe is the truth when they go to these websites. There is a great deal of work on the subject of political ignorance (and self-deception), but I recommend the recent (and very readable) book "Against Democracy" by Jason Brennan for its summary of current evidence, and a proposed solution.
handedness 10y ago
Two issues come to mind there. The first is that some of the intel those agencies were acting on wasn't baseless. (See Operafion Avarice.) The other is that Hussein's deliberate strategy was to make the world believe he was in possession of WMDs. (Specifically Iran.) True or not, it worked. So whether it was suicide by cop using a real weapon or a realistic looking fake, it was ultimately still suicide by cop on a global scale. And the more we learn as things become declassified, the more it's looking like his position wasn't entirely a bluff. (Leaving aside the extraordinary incompetence displayed by SECDEF Rumsfeld, the WH, and numerous other senior officials.)
- lostlogin 10y ago
  "extraordinary incompetence" This goes back to the great-great-etc grandparent. Was it actually bad intent? There were plenty of instances that certianly were, but overall?