David Brooks explained an inherent problem with our intelligence. We rely on data analysis, content analysis and equations from social science. When unclassified data on China, done by the CIA, was compared with a comparable analysis done by historians and anthropologists knowledgeable in the field, the broadly trained thinkers did much better than the analytic CIA committees that currently do all the work.
Brooks favors thinkers over analysts
for top level intelligence work.
There is another problem standing in the way of good intelligence, assuming Brooks is right.
Gabriel Schoenfeld reports in the March issue of Commentary that after Aldrich Ames was caught reporting everything the CIA knew to the Russians, the CIA cracked down and gave everyone a polygraph (lie detector) test. Two hundred people were fired.
Problem is that the polygraph has a 10% alpha and beta error. Meaning that many if not most of the 200 people let go were innocent people and 200 potential spies are still working for the Agency.
A friend of mine, who is as honest as
humans can get ... a pure Eagle Scout, worked on a contract with
the CIA and failed the polygraph three times. Consequently the CIA
was forced to let my friend work without any higher clearances than he already had
from another agency that doesn't use polygraphs.
Any business or government agency that relies on the polygraph to evaluate honesty in personnel is so incompetent as to be unredeemable. The CIA could never hire the thinkers it needs; they wouldn't tolerate a polygraph test.