4 ms·

Very helpful! I had previously mis-interpreted the “intelligence community”’s assessment of “high probability / low confidence” as meaning a 92.3% likelihood, w

Very helpful! I had previously mis-interpreted the “intelligence community”’s assessment of “high probability / low confidence” as meaning a 92.3% likelihood, whereas it actually means 75.8%. If only I had been in possession of this arcane knowledge back when they were telling us about babies in incubators, WMDs, the domino theory, or any number of other hilariously inaccurate and/or dishonest narratives, I would have been much better informed.

stephen_g 4y ago
Of course, the issue is that the intelligence community often assesses things as high probability when it later turns out 100% of that assessment was based on faulty intelligence planted by an adversary (counterintelligence), or informants lied because they would be paid more for better-sounding intel, or a bunch of intelligence was just completely mis-interpreted by analysts, or the intelligence agency themselves just lied because it was politically useful and they haven’t faced real consequences even for directly lying to Congress…
- JPws_Prntr_Fngr 4y ago
  The point of my comment is that “intelligence community” is a euphemism for cabals of spooks - professional backstabbing liars. They are completely unreliable narrators and their word is not to be trusted. The quality of their supposed sources and supposed analyses is irrelevant.
  - jonhohle 4y ago
    I’m not sure why this isn’t more accepted. There’s a meme which sums it up pretty succinctly: Sure the CIA did shady stuff in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, & 10s but they’re good now!
    - JPws_Prntr_Fngr 4y ago
      Because they own the mass media: https://www.cnn.com/profiles/robert-baer-profile https://www.cnn.com/profiles/robert-baer-profile See also the Frank Snepp interview linked elsewhere in this thread.
- Enginerrrd 4y ago
  I mean, based on their stated confidence we'd expect them to be wrong at least 1 in 4.
- wrp 4y ago
  I think the main point here is that while faulty intel is always a risk, the biggest problem is willful misinterpretation. For how things played out in Vietnam, Frank Snepp's book seems to be the most well known, perhaps because it came out early. A more forceful account and criticism by a CIA field analyst is Sam Adam's War of Numbers (1995). (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2471957.War_Of_Numbers https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2471957.War_Of_Numbers)

stephen_g 4y ago

Of course, the issue is that the intelligence community often assesses things as high probability when it later turns out 100% of that assessment was based on faulty intelligence planted by an adversary (counterintelligence), or informants lied because they would be paid more for better-sounding intel, or a bunch of intelligence was just completely mis-interpreted by analysts, or the intelligence agency themselves just lied because it was politically useful and they haven’t faced real consequences even for directly lying to Congress…

JPws_Prntr_Fngr 4y ago
The point of my comment is that “intelligence community” is a euphemism for cabals of spooks - professional backstabbing liars. They are completely unreliable narrators and their word is not to be trusted. The quality of their supposed sources and supposed analyses is irrelevant.
- jonhohle 4y ago
  I’m not sure why this isn’t more accepted. There’s a meme which sums it up pretty succinctly: Sure the CIA did shady stuff in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, & 10s but they’re good now!
  - JPws_Prntr_Fngr 4y ago
    Because they own the mass media: https://www.cnn.com/profiles/robert-baer-profile https://www.cnn.com/profiles/robert-baer-profile See also the Frank Snepp interview linked elsewhere in this thread.
Enginerrrd 4y ago
I mean, based on their stated confidence we'd expect them to be wrong at least 1 in 4.
wrp 4y ago
I think the main point here is that while faulty intel is always a risk, the biggest problem is willful misinterpretation. For how things played out in Vietnam, Frank Snepp's book seems to be the most well known, perhaps because it came out early. A more forceful account and criticism by a CIA field analyst is Sam Adam's War of Numbers (1995). (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2471957.War_Of_Numbers https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2471957.War_Of_Numbers)