Restoring Civil Dialogue in the US Congress

With the changes in the political landscape on Capitol Hill in the wake of the US mid-term elections, an opportunity presents itself for the US Congress to abandon its previous Team A/Team B approach to legislating and adopt new techniques based on the concept of Adversarial Collaboration.

Adversarial Collaboration is a relatively new concept championed by Daniel Kahneman, author of Thinking, Fast and Slow. In a paper published in 2002, Kahneman said he was “…appalled by the absurdly competitive and adversarial nature of these [social science debates], in which hardly anyone ever admits an error or acknowledges learning anything from the other.” He proposes, as an alternative, good-faith efforts to engage in joint research, assuming that the contestants will not reach complete agreement but can lay out their differences in an informed way.

Kahneman’s desire to encourage people to make good-faith efforts to resolve their differences was operationalized by Richards J. Heuer, Jr. Heuer developed three techniques that could be adopted by US Senators and Representatives to shift the dynamic from name-calling to problem-solving:

Mutual Understanding. Side 1 is required to explain Side 2’s position to Side 2 until Side 2 believes Side 1 understands the whole of the argument. Then roles are reversed, and Side 2 must present to Side 1 the argumentation used by Side 1. Once both sides accurately understand each other’s positions, a more rational and less emotion-laden discussion can result.

Joint Escalation. When two sides disagree, instead of escalating the conflict to their superiors to resolve, both sides are required to generate a single document that lays out both sides of the disagreement. Then both sides can “jointly escalate” the position to their superiors based on the agreed description of the differences. Their superiors then have a much more balanced view of the dispute and can more easily propose a just solution.

The Nosenko Approach. Both sides draft separate papers summarizing their positions and identify the ten items of logic or evidence that are most critical in supporting their positions. Each side then shares its paper and its list with the other side and the other side must factor these critical items of evidence and logic into its position paper. Both sides read each other’s revised papers. Hopefully, a more productive discussion will result.

More detailed descriptions of forms of Adversarial Collaboration can be found in Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis, 2nd ed. by Richards J. Heuer, Jr. and Randolph H. Pherson, pages 277-282.

Other techniques that support effective dispute resolution are the Key Assumptions Check, Argument Mapping, and Analysis of Competing Hypotheses. These techniques are described in the newly-published Handbook of Analytic Tools and Techniques, 5th ed. by Randolph H. Pherson.

Conspiracy Theories: How to Respond

Conspiracy theories have been gaining publicity in recent months. When we see them in a tweet or receive an email forwarded from a “dear uncle,” most of us dismiss them as uninformed and irrelevant. But what do you do if someone you know and respect cites and uses one in a discussion with you to buttress his or her point of view?

Challenging conspiracy theories usually fails to work. Asking someone to provide evidence rarely bears fruit because the person repeating the story already believes it to be true and may not recall where she heard it (and almost certainly has no knowledge of the presumed source). Your colleague may not feel the need to cite facts and employ logic because she believes the argument itself is persuasive. The conspiracy theory confirms her “intuition” and biases—and that must make it true! Trying to validate the sources of the theory is a route few will pursue.

Rather than needling your friend for the facts, try something new: do not challenge the statement, but agree it may well be true. The fun comes with your next sentence: If your statement is accurate, then what do you expect will happen in the next three months (or some other appropriate period of time) as a result? Ask the propagator of the theory what behavior an observer should expect to see that would confirm the validity of the theory. Ideally, challenge her to prepare a list of Indicators that both of you can keep that will demonstrate in a short period of time how prescient they may well be.

Once the list of Indicators is drafted and several weeks or months go by, take out the list and see if any of the predicted behavior has occurred. If most of the Indicators “light up,” then you probably should admit that you were unnecessarily skeptical. If few or none come to pass, then you can make a solid case that your colleague’s theory is unsupported or, at best, might require more time to play out.

By using Indicators in this way, you can turn an emotional argument into a more rigorous analytic dialogue. If your colleague is a rational thinker, you may have spurred her to think more carefully about the issue. If your colleague is an ideologue, you probably had little impact on her thinking, but you did have fun demonstrating the power of rational thought!


Seeking Program Manager to join Globalytica’s parent company Pherson Associates

Are you a strategic Program Manager who prides yourself in building high performance teams and executive coaching? Do you have a passion for organization, managing effectiveness, and leadership development? If so, we may have the right opportunity for you!

We are searching for a high performing Program Manager to work on site in Springfield, VA. This position requires an ACTIVE TS/SCI. The primary focus of the work will be to accelerate professional development of leaders at all levels. Learn more here.


You can learn more about how to construct and monitor Indicators in the Analyst’s Guide to Indicators by Randolph H. Pherson and John Pyrik (available in our Analyst’s Bookshop.)

Critical Thinking Fundamentals, our online course, teaches you how to apply Structured Analytic Techniques to improve the quality of your work. Click here to learn more.

Deciphering Russian Intentions

Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya’s statement during an April 2018 interview with NBC’s Richard Engel that she was an “informant” for Yuri Chaika, Russia’s State Prosecutor, raises questions about her role in a meeting with senior campaign officials in Trump Tower in Manhattan in June 2016. Her comments contradict previous public statements that she was acting only in the capacity of a private attorney.

  • At a political rally in Michigan, President Trump described Veselnitskaya’s admission as an attempt by Russian President Putin to create confusion in the United States in retaliation for the aggressive actions Trump has taken against Russia.
  • Administration critics, to the contrary, cite the admission as new evidence of direct Russian involvement with the Trump campaign.

How would a critical thinker parse this issue? One approach would be to apply The Five Habits of the Master Thinker:

  1. Reconsider Key Assumptions: The original assumption was that Veselnitskaya was functioning in a private capacity lobbying on adoption issues. Her recent statement appears to invalidate this assumption; should we now assume she was functioning as an “informant?” Is it possible that her connection with the Russian state is broader and deeper than previously assumed
  2. Consider Alternative Hypotheses: Now that we have challenged a key assumption about why Veselnitskaya met with Trump campaign officials, we should expand our possible explanations of why the meeting took place. Was Veselnitskaya aiming to:
    • Lobby for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act, the 2012 Russian sanctions the US enacted over human rights abuses, as various sources have claimed?
    • Establish mechanisms for providing the Trump campaign with “dirt” on Hillary Clinton—the initial reason for the meeting as conveyed to Donald Trump, Jr?
    • Facilitate Russian efforts to gain more access to, and influence individuals in, Trump’s inner circle?
    • Engage in actions yet to be disclosed?
  3. Look for Inconsistent Data: If the first hypothesis is correct, why would five Russians, some with little apparent interest in adoption issues, attend the meeting? Similarly, efforts by some close to Trump to establish independent channels to communicate with Moscow seem more consistent with the latter two hypotheses. What information has surfaced that would be inconsistent with the second and third hypotheses?
  4. Identify the Key Drivers: Key dynamics to consider include:
    • Putin’s strong desire for revenge against Hillary Clinton’s prior efforts to undercut his election campaign.
    • Long-established ties between individuals in Trump’s circle and senior Russian businessmen that may have fostered a culture of cooperation and deal making.
    • The Trump campaign staff’s lack of familiarity with US political culture and legal requirements imposed on campaigning, including prohibitions against accepting foreign funding or support.
  5. Understand the Context: In this instance, thinking “two levels above your pay grade” could propel you to move above nation state analysis and adopt the perspective of the global body politic. Veselnitskaya’s disclosure is troublesome in this regard because it suggests a foreign adversary may have been actively seeking to influence another country’s internal political process.

Click here to read more about The Five Habits of the Master Thinker

Refine your Critical Thinking skills with our online Critical Thinking Fundamentals course. The next 20-hour session begins June 4. Click here for details!

Don’t Be Duped!

Deception Detection techniques used by intelligence analysts help you spot fake news.

Only days after the Parkland, Florida school shooting, Russian bots began sending messages on social media designed to enflame the debate over gun control. Russians also actively exploited the power of social media to shape people’s perceptions during the 2016 US Presidential campaign, as detailed in the indictment issued by the Mueller investigation targeting 13 Russian operatives.

After hearing both news reports, the first question I asked myself was “How many of the messages I read were fake news, intended to manipulate how I think?”  Even more important questions are: “How would I know I am being manipulated? What could I look for that might tip me off?”

The intelligence community has been working the Deception Detection issue for decades. Over the years, we have developed a list of indicators that suggest that someone is trying to deceive you. The same list can be used to alert you to efforts by people who are trying to influence your thinking by targeting you with fake news.

  1. If the message is exactly what you want to hear, it could be too good to be true! Most of us want to believe that our views are correct. When we see information that confirms our beliefs, we are highly inclined to believe it is true because it confirms our own predilections and biases.
  2. If something shows up in your inbox at the moment that you find yourself trying to make up your mind about an important issue (like which candidate to vote for or what to position to take on a gun law), it may not be a coincidence! There is a good chance you are being targeted by someone who wants to sway how you think.
  3. If the report or post spurs you to change your mind on an important topic or would lead you to alter a key assumption or judgment, be sure to check out the source.
  4. If accepting the new information would cause you to expend or divert significant resources, stop and consider whether it could be fake news before you act.

You can also take measures to make yourself less vulnerable to fake news:

  • Avoid overreliance on a single source of information or a single stream of reporting; monitor a diverse set of news feeds.
  • Be suspicious of news authors or outlets whose sources are unclear; assume that everyone who posts on the internet has an agenda—and that some can be highly malicious.
  • Look for material evidence (an address, phone number, other verifiable information, or alternative confirming source) that would back up a story or message.
  • Consider whether an alternative hypothesis or explanation also merits attention.

Learn more about when to suspect you are receiving fake news and how to protect against in the Handbook of Analytic Tools and Techniques. The chapter on Deception Detection in the Handbook also describes how to use the MOM, POP, MOSES, and EVE methods to determine if a document is deceptive.

Interested in learning more about structured analytic techniques and how to use them to improve your everyday analysis? Register today for our popular online course Critical Thinking Fundamentals. This 20-hour program runs for two-weeks, beginning on April 16. Click here for details!

Assessing the Impact of the Trump Administration at the One-Year Mark

In times of conflict and uncertainty, Indicators protect you against Hindsight Bias and Confirmation Bias because they provide an objective baseline from which to begin—and continue to evaluate the accuracy of—your analysis. Developing a list of Indicators is only the first step; tracking them periodically over time uncovers their true value.

On the anniversary of President Trump’s inauguration, Globalytica continues its exercise in using Indicators to track its associates’ predictions for the new administration. (See details below the graphic.)

In the past year, almost two-thirds of the predictions generated by administration critics have proved correct. In contrast, less than half of the predictions of administration supporters have been realized. In addition, over the past year 58 percent of what administration supporters feared might happen has come about, but only 44 percent of what administration critics’ feared would happen has occurred.

From January 2017 to January 2018:

  • Administration critics have been more prescient, anticipating the difficulties in establishing the Executive Branch, frictions within the Republican Party, a nationalist and protectionist foreign policy, and strong anti-immigration sentiments. Much of what they feared would happen has not transpired, including defunding Planned Parenthood, disestablishing the EXIM bank, repealing Roe v. Wade, and experiencing a declining economy.
  • Administration supporters have seen less progress made toward implementing their anticipated agenda as the administration has failed to repeal Obamacare, build the wall, produce a balanced budget, jettison the Iran deal, or increase funding for the military. On the other hand, as predicted, the administration has eviscerated many government regulations and taken a hard line on trade. Much of what supporters feared might happen, however, has transpired, including continued terrorist attacks, partisan resistance in Congress, a sustained Russia investigation, and continued government gridlock.

More recently:

  • Administration critics’ concerns about an upswing in racial tensions and increased criticism of the Intelligence Community, especially the FBI, have been realized.
  • Administration supporters have proved correct in predicting the passage of major tax cuts and the opening of investigations into Hilary Clinton.

In sum, over the past year:

  • Administration critics have been better predictors of Indicators they expected to happen. More than three out of five events they expected to happen have occurred; in contrast, only two out of five things they feared have come true. But an increasing number of things they were afraid would happen are starting to come true.
  • Administration supporters have fared less well. Only two out of five Indicators they expected to happen have occurred and nearly three out of five events they were afraid would happen have transpired.

Looking ahead, some Indicators to watch for are the potential for greater infighting within the Republican Party, an upswing in popular demonstrations, the results of the FBI investigation, a less healthy stock market or economy, a strengthened female voice in politics, and the potential for one or more foreign misadventures.

Globalytica will periodically refresh and publish this checklist to continue demonstrating the importance and value of Indicators. You can learn more about these techniques in Analyst’s Guide to Indicators by Randolph H. Pherson and John Pyrik. To learn more about our associated training opportunities, including the two-week online Critical Thinking Fundamentals course taught monthly, click here.

The Method

In January 2017, Globalytica asked its associates to forecast what changes the Trump Administration would bring in its first year. After the Administration had been in place for 100 days, we assessed the accuracy of our associates’ predictions (see Vol. 4, Issue 4). We took a second look at the 200-day mark (see Vol. 4, Issue 8) and a third look at the 300-day mark (see Vol. 4, Issue 10). Predictive accuracy is calculated as the percent of the 48 boxes in each quadrant of the chart that are shaded. Percent improvement is the net percent of additional boxes shaded since the 300-day mark.

At the one-year mark, we assess the accuracy of each prediction over the entire year. Each Indicator was rescored using a 5-point scale to reflect the extent to which the Indicator has come true. The complete results are displayed in the graphic above.

Make Sure Good Ideas are Heard

Do you ever feel like you don’t get enough credit for your good ideas? Do you occasionally make decisions before getting input from everyone in the group? The holidays are a great time to practice some techniques to help you avoid these problems.

Holiday gatherings provide many venues to engage in conversations with friends, family, and colleagues. For the talkers amongst us (whom we will callExternal Thinkers in this blog), these occasions provide opportunities to share our personal viewpoints and observe how people react to them. Those of us who are quieter (whom we will call Internal Thinkers), on the other hand, would prefer to have a minute or so of silence to think about an issue before we are expected to formulate a comment or a response. Are you an External Thinker or an Internal Thinker? Most analysts fall into the second category.

In most situations, External Thinkers will dominate the discussion while the thoughts of the Internal Thinkers go unspoken. This would suggest that we have a real problem—a lot of good ideas are not being heard. If given a chance to reflect, Internal Thinkers may have opinions to share but are reluctant to express them, especially in front of a large group. Should the discussion, for example, turn to where to go on the next family vacation, ways to reduce holiday stress, or the impact of the new US tax bill, Internal Thinkers might have better insights than their more extroverted counterparts who usually dominate the conversation.

So, what can be done to fix this problem?

  • At a minimum, External Thinkers should try to notice when Internal Thinkers are not participating as the conversation progresses, and make a point to ask them for their opinions. One way to make sure the entire group is included is to go around the table or conversation circle and ask everyone what they think.
  • Another technique is to physically divide the group into External Thinkers and Internal Thinkers. For example, you could arrange for each group to sit together at either end of the dining room table. TheExternal Thinkers might get a little loud at their end, but the Internal Thinkers will respect the desires of those around them to allow a little silence while they take time to think.

In a work setting or a more organized brainstorming session, you can practice:

  • Silent Brainstorming. Pass out note cards to all participants at various points in the session and ask them to stop talking for a minute or two and write down two or three of their best ideas. Then ask them to pass their cards to you to share with the group by reading them out loud anonymously. If someone in the group is talking too much, then surreptitiously put his card on the bottom of the pack and read out the cards from the Internal Thinkers first.
  • Pre-thinking. In advance of the session, tell the invited participants what will be discussed, and ask them to jot down some initial ideas to bring to the group. You can collect them and post them on a white board or easel. This is a great way to launch the discussion!

If you are interested in learning more about small group dynamics, Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis, 2nd Ed. dedicates a chapter to the topic.

Forecasting the Impact of the Trump Administration, Part III

In uncertain times, Indicators protect you against Hindsight Bias because they provide an initial, objective baseline from which to begin your analysis. Developing a list of Indicators is the first step in the process; tracking them over time releases their true power.

This month, Globalytica continues its exercise in which associates were asked to forecast what impacts the Trump administration would have over the course of the first 300 days in office. (See the New Year’s Edition, Volume 4, Issue 4 and Volume 4, Issue 8 for previous articles in the series.)

Since President Trump was inaugurated, about one-third of the predictions generated by Administration supporters in January 2017 have been realized while two-thirds of the predictions generated by Administration critics have occurred. In contrast, almost two-thirds of what Trump supporters’ feared might happen has come about, but only one-third of what Administration critics feared might happen has occurred.

A review of the past 100 days reveals several significant developments that buttressed some of these predictions, including:

  • The events in Charlottesville and other cities fanning racial tensions
  • Terrorist attacks in Las Vegas and New York City
  • Trump’s decision not to certify the Iran accord and send it to Congress for action
  • Congress’s failure to repeal Obamacare coupled with executive actions undercutting the program
  • The introduction of major tax legislation that would increase the deficit
  • Sputtering efforts to renegotiate NAFTA
  • More executive actions reducing regulation, especially relating to finance and the environment
  • Judge Moore’s primary victory in Alabama and Bannon’s redefined political role
  • Escalating tensions with North Korea (that were not identified as a factor in January)

In sum, during the past 100 days:

  • Both administration supporters and administration critics witnessed a significant increase in the occurrence of things they were afraid would happen.
  • In contrast, few additional things occurred that supporters or critics of the administration would have liked to happen.

This would suggest that tensions within the country are mounting.

What Predictions Have Not Happened?

Predictions that have not come to pass include:

  • Trump stops using his personal Twitter account
  • Former President Obama organizes a successful grassroots opposition campaign
  • Health care costs are reduced
  • The EXIM Bank is abandoned
  • Roe v. Wade is repealed
  • The country experiences continual, unchecked rioting
  • The country comes together

Globalytica will update and republish this checklist again at the one-year mark in the Trump Administration. You can learn more about how to generate, validate, and present Indicators in our most recent publication, Analyst’s Guide to Indicators by Randolph H. Pherson and John Pyrik. To learn more about our associated training opportunities, including the two-week online Critical Thinking Fundamentals course taught monthly, click here.

The Method

In January, Globalytica asked its associates to forecast what changes the Trump Administration would bring in its first year. In March, after the Administration had been in place for 100 days, we assessed the accuracy of our associates’ predictions (see Vol. 4, Issue 4). We took a second look at the 200-day mark (see Vol. 4, Issue 8). Predictive accuracy is calculated as the percent of the 48 boxes in each quadrant of the chart that are filled in. Percent improvement is the net percent of additional boxes filled in from the last 100-day period.

Now, at the 300-day mark, we assess how much the events of the last 100 days have improved the accuracy of our associates’ forecasts. We reviewed the four lists and rescored each Indicator using a 5-point scale to reflect the extent to which the Indicator has come about in the first 300 days. The complete results are displayed in the graphic above.

What Can We Learn from Las Vegas?

The recent tragedy in Las Vegas provides a clear example of the need for all of us to challenge our assumptions. The commendable efforts by local first-responder organizations also demonstrates the value of using foresight techniques to build more resilience in preparing for the unexpected or worst-case scenarios.

Challenging Our Assumptions. After learning more details about the Las Vegas shooting, many people wondered why hotel personnel would not have noticed and reported boxes of high-powered weapons and ammunition being taken to a room on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel. Their assumption, which turned out to be incorrect, was that the movement of so much lethal material was unusual. But it was not! Las Vegas has a robust gun culture, and major gun shows are held virtually every week. Visitors often bring large collections of weapons to the city. In the wake of a major terrorist incident, we must constantly challenge our assumptions to guard against premature closure and hindsight bias.

Building Resiliency. When things go bad, the postmortems almost always spark comments like “Why didn’t we notice in time?” or “Why were we not prepared?” Exercising good forethought, public safety agencies generate alternative scenarios and practice responding to them to enhance their response time and save lives. Las Vegas first responders, for example, were prepared to deal with the unprecedented and tragic shooting because they practiced how to react to an attack like the one that occurred in Mumbai, India in November 2008. The use of scenarios allowed them to better anticipate the unanticipated. Surrounding hospitals were able to deal effectively with what many described as “orderly chaos” in the hours following the attack because they had conducted their own resiliency-building scenarios exercises. As demonstrated in Las Vegas, resilient organizations are able to keep many variables in play and to anticipate the future unfolding in multiple ways.

Two other structured techniques that first responders can use to build more resiliency into their organizations by anticipating multiple futures are What If? Analysis and Quadrant Crunching™.

  • What If? Analysis posits that a disaster has occurred (for example, a mass killing at a sports event) and asks participants to brainstorm how the previously unthinkable event could have occurred. Once several feasible scenarios are developed, the next question is what resources and strategies would first responders need to best respond to the attack and assist the victims.
  • Quadrant Crunching™ is another reframing technique that first responders can use to avoid surprise. By challenging the conventional wisdom, the method examines multiple combinations of key variables to generate a large number of feasible alternatives. It was developed to help analysts and decision makers identify the many different ways terrorists and radical extremists could mount an attack on a given target.

Step-by-step instructions for using these techniques to challenge your assumptions and generate alternative scenarios can be found in Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis, 2nd ed.

Forecasting the Impact of the Trump Administration, Part II

In uncertain times, Indicators offer a structured way to anticipate how the future will unfold. They also protect you against Hindsight Bias because they provide an initial, objective baseline from which to begin your analysis. Developing a list of Indicators is the first step in the process; tracking them over time releases their true power.

In January, Globalytica asked its associates to forecast what changes the new Trump Administration would bring in its first year. In March, after the Administration had been in place for 100 days, we assessed the accuracy of our associates’ predictions (see Analytic Insider Vol. 4, Issue 4). Now that another 100 days has passed, we are taking a second look at the Indicators to see if events of the last 100 days have improved the accuracy of our associates’ forecasts.

We reviewed our original four lists and rescored each Indicator using a 5-point scale to reflect the extent to which the Indicator has come about in the first 200 days. Key findings follow. The complete results are displayed in the accompanying graphic. Please note that the events in Charlottesville, Virginia and Administration actions on China trade came after the 200-day mark.

Administration supporters have proved less accurate predictors than critics.
Supporters of the Administration have seen only 33 percent of the Indicators they had wanted to happen come about, while 46 percent of what they were afraid might happen has occurred.

  • Developments that supporters of the Administration accurately predicted include: i) the move of the entire Trump family to Washington, ii) the submission of a budget to Congress, and iii) agreement to renegotiate NAFTA.
  • Contrary developments include: i) Republican resistance in the US Congress to Administration priorities, ii) declining Presidential popularity ratings, and iii) chronic speculation about the viability of the Administration.

Critics of the Administration, on the other hand, have seen 65 percent of the Indicators they wanted to happen come about, but only 21 percent of what they were afraid would happen occur.

  • Developments that have come true that critics of the Administration favored include: i) progress toward containing ISIS, ii) sustaining the US commitment to NATO, and iii) Congress’s failure to implement campaign promises.
  • A key contrary development was the partial reversal of the Obama Administration’s policies toward Cuba.

Both supporters and critics saw their predictive scorecard improve slightly.
Over the second 100 days, both supporters and critics saw the accuracy of their predictions improve by 10 percent. Predictions of things Administration supporters were afraid would come to pass improved by 8 percent, but by only 2 percent for Administration critics.

Globalytica will update and republish this checklist again at the 300-day mark.  You can learn more about how to generate, validate, and present Indicators in the Analyst’s Guide to Indicators by Randolph H. Pherson and John Pyrik, forthcoming in October 2017. To learn more about our online training opportunities, including the two-week online Critical Thinking Fundamentals course taught monthly, click here.

Why Should People Believe What I Say?

Because I Use the Analytic Spectrum

In today’s world of 24/7 news, too many of us are willing to offer an opinion before knowing the hard facts. In cognitive psychology, this is called coming to Premature Closure. Other pitfalls include the Vividness Bias and Relying on First Impressions (See Pherson and Pherson’s Critical Thinking for Strategic Intelligence for descriptions of these biases and intuitive traps.)

One way to minimize your vulnerability to these traps is to follow the steps of the Analytic Spectrum (see graphic). The Spectrum was developed by Globalytica President Kathy Pherson to illustrate the different stages of analysis and how one stage can build on another. The four stages are Descriptive, Explanatory, Evaluative, and Estimative. The four stages also correspond to the four types of analytic products, ranging from Factsheets to National Intelligence Estimates.

The next time a national news story breaks, discipline yourself to work your way through the four stages before announcing your conclusion. Let’s see how this works using the attack on the Westminster Bridge and the Houses of Parliament in London on March 27, 2017 as an example.

Descriptive: What are the facts?
The perpetrator sped across the Westminster Bridge killing 4 people and injuring more than 50, crashed into the fence around the Houses of Parliament, and then stabbed one of the security guards to death.

Explanatory: What do the facts mean?
The perpetrator appeared intent on causing considerable human damage, knowing that his actions would probably result in his death. Was he inspired by ISIS to conduct the attack or was he simply mentally deranged?

Evaluative: Why is this important?
Is this pattern of attack becoming more frequent? Does this incident suggest I may be in more danger when I travel or whenever I am in public spaces?

Estimative: What next?
Will this type of attack become more frequent? Is the ISIS radicalization program becoming more effective in inspiring lone wolf attacks? Do we need to commit more resources to combating ISIS-type social media or to dealing with mental disorders in society?

I walked across the bridge one month after the attack and watched repairs being made to the fence around the Houses of Parliament. Life in London had returned to normal, and tourism had not been affected. Most media outlets reported that the popular response to the attack was that business should continue as usual and such aberrant attacks should not be allowed to affect personal behavior. But those using the Analytic Spectrum might be more inclined to argue that attention should be given both to combating the power of the radical extremist propaganda and to providing more effective mental health care.

Designed by Globalytica’s analytic experts, the Analytic Spectrum Quick Look is a 30-60 minute, self-paced professional development session utilizing online activities and exercises that will save the analyst time and create a more focused product for the client.

For more information on how you can access the Analytic Spectrum: Quick Look and other online learning resources, click here.