Thinking Critically in Intelligence & Investigative Functions: History, Application, and Future Reflections

Critical thinking is a general term utilized to imprecisely describe the process by which a solution is achieved by leveraging one’s intellectual capacities and rational judgement. Spanning a diverse range of academic disciplines, critical thinking has essentially held a relatively subjective definition since its initial conceptualization during the classical Greek era; for although the discipline would not forgo significant definitional changes, including its dissemination into several smaller intellectual fields, the primary process of critical thinking can be traced inevitably to its philosophical foundation in approximately 399 BC.

Given its broad terminological composition, the phrase itself varies slightly across all disciplines in which it claims legitimacy. The central governing body of scholarly evidence tends to suggest Socrates as the principal force behind the genesis of early-stage critical thinking. Inspired by the rhetorical dominance present in the classical era, Socrates discovered a seemingly undiscovered and intangible discrepancy between supposedly objective truths and a rational inability to defend those truths against logical scrutiny. This method of leveraging logical inconsistencies and profound interpersonal inquiries would later become labeled as “Socratic questioning,” which contemporarily remains one of the quintessential critical thinking strategies. Not to be confused synonymously, the presence of Socratic questioning, or its comparable modern relatives of Wicklander-Zulawski interviewing or even classic political debate, is not infallibly reflective of critical thought always; however the success of these verbal techniques relies solely on the ability of the speaker to logically calculate premises and postulate axiomatic truisms, both of which require ample critical thought. Much like its intellectual cousins of discourse, truth, and knowledge, the challenge of reaching a singularly practical explanation of critical thinking is to avoid postulating the rigidity of its application. Critical thinking as a biological resource does not exist on a single dimension, nor can it be quantitatively measured. It is both false and dangerous to assume the functional diligence of such a trait is necessarily fixed to a small handful of fixed duties.  

The principal function (s) of critical thinking to individuals operating in the intelligence and investigative spheres is twofold; first to supplement technological tools during the actualization of the intelligence process itself, including the most effective strategy for mobilization, and second to safeguard against imminent cognitive bias. To the extent that modern technology is capable of analyzing, comprehending, and predicting human behavior and decision making in its entirety, such is the nature of humanism itself that certain intangibles cannot be accurately measured by any non-living organism. In example, as empathy is not a factor that can be impeccably programmed into a sort of analytic device, the application of that particular subset must originate from the individual himself. Since the ultimate encapsulation of intelligence gathering entails the various activities and communication of human beings, successful obtainment and galvanization of information regarding these beings must be rooted in raw human ability itself.  

Admittedly a gross oversimplification, it can be stated that technological assets serve the primary purpose of any inanimate tool, which must subsequently be commanded by some hyperorganic intention. That is to say, the ideal rational ability, or critical thinking value of the individual fulfills its pivotal function as the director of its technological counterparts. Technology exists as a channel through which human power can be amplified dramatically, and this phenomenon lays the hypothetical foundation for nearly all occupational work that entails the accumulation and analysis of data, including investigative intelligence.

The critical thought of an analyst may habitually influence how and when technological resources are employed to the advantage of the intelligence professional. Frequently, the delicate nature of investigative work demands that actionable results are acquired in a timely manner according to a prespecified deadline. Thus the sharper an analyst’s critical thinking prowess, often the faster desired benchmarks of “success” are met. When speed matters in investigative work, as it often does, the competence of critical thought possessed by the analyst may become the single most influential factor on the mission objective. Yet the true utility of critical thought is to be imagined more so as a pure basin of organic power, a quasi-fluid, curvilinear organ capable of catalyzing raw human processing power. It cannot be stated genuinely that critical thinking can be applied respectively to all problems as a computational filter to be so carelessly inserted to assist in any number of scenarios. Rather, it must be thought of as an improvable skill possessed by the analyst which must be intentionally actionized to spur a resulting mental toil in whatever the task at hand may be.

The modern scientific landscape is dictated by a somewhat chaotic hybrid of natural human capacity and technological apparatuses. Currently both platforms serve in conjunction with one another, with critical thinking tending to act as the adhesive between organic and its contrasting artificial antithesis. Ironically, critical thinking itself is responsible for much of the development of new technologies, which may eventually replace flawed human reasoning according to some optimistic loyalists. While this sentiment may not be necessarily indicative of valid human decline, one of the strongest challenges for intelligence analysts heading into the 21st century is the perceived or actual competition with new cutting edge technology. Is it feasible to prepare for an age in which all OSINT related functions are executed by artificial computing, and thus deem human analytics majorly extinct? Although it seems unlikely, the undergirding theme of cognitive decline presents a very tangible challenge for intelligence analysts. As myriads of industrial occupations are steadily phased out in favor of mechanical replacements, the analyst must locate that which he can outperform the machine, and justify that contention wholly. It would consequently be within his or her best interest to additionally find area in which irreplaceable critical thinking is best equally conserved and allocated to produce maximal output from technological resources.