Higher-Order Thinking
"The hallmark of a civilized society is not the sophistication of its technology. The hallmark of a civilized society is higher-ordered thinking and behavior that reflects it."
If I had to answer the question, “what do you mean by ‘higher-order thinking’?” I would have a difficult time describing it. But since I have nothing better to do…
In my mind, the expression “higher-order” conjures mental images of mathematical equations and graphs. By definition, the order of an equation is established by the highest exponent in the equation. For example, y equal to x squared is a second-order equation; y equal to x cubed is a third-order equation. A more accurate definition would include the contribution of other ordered variables within the equation. For example, y equal to x cubed times z is a fourth-order equation; y equal to x cubed times z squared is a fifth-order equation. Are your eyes glazed over yet?
So, what does this have to do with “thinking”? Well, let’s use history as a source of examples. Those who believed that the world was flat could be described as linear, or single-order thinkers. When Cristobal Colon (a.k.a. Columbus) postulated that the world was round (or more accurately, spherical), he, and others like him demonstrated higher-order thinking. A sphere, after all, is described by a second-order equation. Taking this example one leap further, eminent theorists have postulated that the universe is a sphere that is constantly expanding. Whether it’s true or not is irrelevant. What’s important is that such an incredibly complex concept can be conceived and reasoned.
At the risk of impugning many religions, the notion that any single set of “rules of man” is complete and “righteous” does not employ or demonstrate higher-order thinking. By contrast, the concept that the “rules of man” are ever-changing and evolving offers a more thought-provoking supposition.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it...
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Actionable Intelligence
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (NCT) has been broadcasting their public hearings this week and, unlike those who have gone before them (Joint [Congressional] Inquiry on Intelligence), the information coming through to the attentive audience is insightful and thought-provoking. This independent group of experts, politicians, and insiders are finally bringing to bear the widest possible aperture on the circumstances surrounding the events that led up to the tragedy of September 11th, 2001. Unlike the Joint Inquiry, their investigation has a “unique breadth and scale”, to include addressing policy, culture, military, and intelligence factors. What is most significantly being revealed are critical elements of the bigger picture.
In the book “Losing Bin Laden”, the author recounts many critical judgments that were made where we sacrificed the opportunity to prevent future al-Qaida violence. The NCT has, a year into its investigation, reached the same findings. Namely, on four separate occasions, the President (Clinton) was given the opportunity to kill Usama bin Laden (UBL) and on each occasion, the decision was made (by the collective intelligence in the room) to not take action. The chief reason in each case was a cited lack of “actionable intelligence”. Specifically, there was only one source providing the location of UBL with no corroboration.
As they say, hindsight is 20/20, but let’s move on and draw a parallel with the current state of affairs. Our present President (Bush) did take action based upon, what I consider, a similar level of intelligence. In some cases, the information was uncorroborated and later debunked. However, he took the risk in the face of the potential consequences and invaded Iraq, deposing their regime. In his opinion, there was “actionable intelligence”.
My ire is raised as I recognize that when faced with virtually the same degree of “actionable intelligence” (little to none, depending on who you ask), each President made a decision that ultimately resulted in a black eye. Clearly, in both cases, a decision had to be made. In one, no action was taken; in the other, the opposite. How can both roads be wrong? And in that situation, where is the middle ground? What is the right decision? Is it simply a matter of degree? The lesser of two evils? I suppose it’s a matter of your perspective.
Now, I recognize that in Clinton’s case it wasn’t a matter of whether or not it was appropriate to liquidate UBL, but, rather, whether it was worth the collateral damage that might accompany it. The fear of failure was so rank, however, that “inaction” was the only probable decision.
In high school, there was a guy who was sent to us after having spent a year in juvenile detention. His posture and demeanor were constantly threatening and intimidating. At any moment, you feared that he might assault you, leaving you bloody in the courtyard. Some people did their best to avoid him at all costs; to circumvent any potential for a conflict. It didn’t eliminate him as a threat, just their exposure to the threat. By default it increased everyone else’s exposure. It wouldn’t be long before the threat was realized by those who couldn’t escape him. In other words, it was statistically impossible to avoid being victimized. Some of the more “confident” young men in the school chose, on the other hand, to take matters into their own hands and preemptively “eliminate the threat”. Personally, I thought it had a 50/50 chance of being an effective approach to deterring any further aggression from him. The key I realized, after it occurred, was the overwhelming force that was applied. The “confident young men” came in force and they “communicated their message” quite effectively. Did it come to blows? Yes. But here’s the thing…it came to blows with two parties that were active participants and accepted the potential consequences going in. All parties were suspended, but for the remainder of the year, no further aggression was realized.
Whether you’re the one to avoid conflict or to face it head on isn’t the issue. It doesn’t boils down to what kind of person you are, but, rather, what kind of person you want to lead and protect you. In the case of two Presidents, I want the one who is willing to take risks, to make mistakes, and accept responsibility for his/her actions...
I’ll close with this quote to give you further pause…
"In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." -- Martin Niemoller
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (NCT) has been broadcasting their public hearings this week and, unlike those who have gone before them (Joint [Congressional] Inquiry on Intelligence), the information coming through to the attentive audience is insightful and thought-provoking. This independent group of experts, politicians, and insiders are finally bringing to bear the widest possible aperture on the circumstances surrounding the events that led up to the tragedy of September 11th, 2001. Unlike the Joint Inquiry, their investigation has a “unique breadth and scale”, to include addressing policy, culture, military, and intelligence factors. What is most significantly being revealed are critical elements of the bigger picture.
In the book “Losing Bin Laden”, the author recounts many critical judgments that were made where we sacrificed the opportunity to prevent future al-Qaida violence. The NCT has, a year into its investigation, reached the same findings. Namely, on four separate occasions, the President (Clinton) was given the opportunity to kill Usama bin Laden (UBL) and on each occasion, the decision was made (by the collective intelligence in the room) to not take action. The chief reason in each case was a cited lack of “actionable intelligence”. Specifically, there was only one source providing the location of UBL with no corroboration.
As they say, hindsight is 20/20, but let’s move on and draw a parallel with the current state of affairs. Our present President (Bush) did take action based upon, what I consider, a similar level of intelligence. In some cases, the information was uncorroborated and later debunked. However, he took the risk in the face of the potential consequences and invaded Iraq, deposing their regime. In his opinion, there was “actionable intelligence”.
My ire is raised as I recognize that when faced with virtually the same degree of “actionable intelligence” (little to none, depending on who you ask), each President made a decision that ultimately resulted in a black eye. Clearly, in both cases, a decision had to be made. In one, no action was taken; in the other, the opposite. How can both roads be wrong? And in that situation, where is the middle ground? What is the right decision? Is it simply a matter of degree? The lesser of two evils? I suppose it’s a matter of your perspective.
Now, I recognize that in Clinton’s case it wasn’t a matter of whether or not it was appropriate to liquidate UBL, but, rather, whether it was worth the collateral damage that might accompany it. The fear of failure was so rank, however, that “inaction” was the only probable decision.
In high school, there was a guy who was sent to us after having spent a year in juvenile detention. His posture and demeanor were constantly threatening and intimidating. At any moment, you feared that he might assault you, leaving you bloody in the courtyard. Some people did their best to avoid him at all costs; to circumvent any potential for a conflict. It didn’t eliminate him as a threat, just their exposure to the threat. By default it increased everyone else’s exposure. It wouldn’t be long before the threat was realized by those who couldn’t escape him. In other words, it was statistically impossible to avoid being victimized. Some of the more “confident” young men in the school chose, on the other hand, to take matters into their own hands and preemptively “eliminate the threat”. Personally, I thought it had a 50/50 chance of being an effective approach to deterring any further aggression from him. The key I realized, after it occurred, was the overwhelming force that was applied. The “confident young men” came in force and they “communicated their message” quite effectively. Did it come to blows? Yes. But here’s the thing…it came to blows with two parties that were active participants and accepted the potential consequences going in. All parties were suspended, but for the remainder of the year, no further aggression was realized.
Whether you’re the one to avoid conflict or to face it head on isn’t the issue. It doesn’t boils down to what kind of person you are, but, rather, what kind of person you want to lead and protect you. In the case of two Presidents, I want the one who is willing to take risks, to make mistakes, and accept responsibility for his/her actions...
I’ll close with this quote to give you further pause…
"In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." -- Martin Niemoller
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
