Browsing by Subject "Wisdom"

Now showing 1 - 20 of 34

The Agenda for Dialogues among Civilizations should be Human Survival
(2005-06) Andregg, Michael M.
THE Agenda for Dialogues Among Civilizations Should be Human Survival Prepared for the ISCSC’s 34th conference in St. Paul, Minnesota, USA at the University of St. Thomas, June 9-11, 2005. By Michael Andregg, University of St. Thomas, mmandregg@stthomas.edu Abstract The first, and last item on my agenda for dialogues among civilizations is human survival. The prime reason is that this goal generates more cooperation and less argument than any other I have found. If we are to avoid the “clash” of civilizations that many fear, we should avoid angry “debates” about political or ideological issues. The core difference between a “clash” or a “debate” and a “dialogue” is style or tone. These are vague concepts, but profoundly important. Safe food, clean water, fuel for heating and fibers to wear or write on can be politicized (as can anything) but they are also the most universal human needs. Therefore they are also understood by the illiterate as well as by erudite elites. The goal of human survival promotes a positive tone that helps with the very hard work of finding viable solutions to the manifold challenges of our time. From this point of entry, 10,000 other topics can be discussed constructively, including contentious ones. The point is to establish more rapport between participants than often exists initially, by focusing on common ground before the more difficult issues of war, peace and politics inevitably emerge. Even religion and its varieties may be dialogued very constructively if rapport exists with some minimal empathy for the problems that other human beings face. Lacking this, if one starts with religion or politics by contrast, one too often encounters dogmatic views or demonization of the other, and constructive dialogue becomes nearly impossible. Here are some threats to human survival that might better be addressed by a “dialogue” instead of a great “debate” among the civilizations of the earth today. War should be obvious, particularly when weapons of mass destruction are considered. Energy, oil-based and otherwise, is a challenge of vast scale with huge consequences for all. Threats to human survival include the many environmental challenges and even catastrophes cited by the recent Report of the United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs, and forewarned by the Global 2000 Report to the President (of the United States, then Jimmy Carter) 25 years ago. They include religious extremism (or militant religion) and the challenges of how to preserve cultural and political diversity in an age of globalization. Each of those threats to physical or cultural survival includes many sub-topics, all of which benefit from a constructive attitude among those who seek solutions through dialogue as opposed to debate. Partisan bickering is the antithesis of this. So I say again that promoting this attitude is as important as any topic or line item on an agenda. No, it is more important than the intellectual elements on such lists of good things one might do.
Can a Culture of Violence Sustain Peaceful Democracy?
(International Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations, 2013) Andregg, Michael M.
Can a Culture of Violence Sustain Peaceful Democracy? Of course, if one is flexible enough with definitions. That gets harder the more idyllic one wants the “peaceful democracy” to be. Most democracies are not all that peaceful now, and some are among the most violent nations on earth. Like, why dodge the obvious, my dear home United States of America. We hold records. We have been involved in more wars and lethal operations in more other countries than any other nation on earth over the last few decades, especially if one includes smaller targets in places like Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and other countries who have lost one snatched or snuffed. We incarcerate more of our own people than anyone else in the world, by rate and absolutely. Our war on drugs extends to tens of thousands dying in countries like Mexico and Columbia, and to hundreds of thousands in America with near-life sentences for petty crimes. We have more guns per capita than any other nation on earth bar none, and are damn proud of it polls generally show, despite enduring one of the highest murder rates as well. And our mass murderers, about 20 each year, have often been entertained and “educated” by some of the most ruthless video games ever created anywhere. America holds many records! So if you include the USA in the set of “peaceful democracies” then you would have to conclude that it is certainly possible to sustain a “peaceful democracy” with a pretty violent culture by most observers’ assessments. Some of our most ardent weapons enthusiasts, like the NRA, say that we sustain our peaceful democracy because of extensive gun ownership, etc. Their critics say we are on a path to perdition, but so far the Pentagon still owns the path. There are surely more peaceful democracies on earth today, no doubt, and may God Bless every one of them. Most of them have far more restricted access to guns, smaller and less harsh prisons, less militaristic foreign policies, and dramatically lower rates of death by violence. Some examples: Japan, Finland, Costa Rica, South Korea, Singapore and most of Europe. And there are police-states that rigorously repress both free speech and private ownership of weapons. If one expects perfection in definitions, however, you can be pretty confident that no perfectly peaceful democracies exist. Most true pacifists got run out of their ancestral lands long ago, like the Dalai Lama, so almost every government on earth maintains an army to maintain borders. Rare exceptions like Costa Rica rely on the prudence of neighbors too poor to invade. More common are countries built with guns, like China, Russia, the USA and Canada, all successful if variably violent nations today. Remember, North Americans were all Indians 550 years ago. Native populations may have been more or less peaceful, a very mixed record, but that mattered less than their inability to stop invaders with better weapons when civilizations clashed. This is just an opinion not a recommendation, and I welcome any others most sincerely. Michael Andregg, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, Dec. 28, 2012, for the ISCSC 2013 newsletter
The Challenge of Achieving Wisdom in Intelligence Products and Processes
(2016-03-16) Andregg, Michael M.
This is a PowerPoint presentation sized for typical, ISA intelligence section panels. Its ~ 20 frames deal with institutional constraints much discussed elsewhere like the perennial desire of policy makers to keep their intel staffs out of policy (e.g. they often discourage anything close to wisdom, preferring "just the facts" so they can make the big decisions. Other common themes are very short time constraints and overreliance on "secret" sources of information that are often tainted in many ways. It brushes on some uncommon themes like the prevalence of psychopaths in secret power systems, but does not go into any depth on those difficult topics.
The Challenge of Achieving Wisdom in Intelligence Products and Processes, outline
(2015-02-19) Andregg, Michael M.
The word "wisdom" almost never appears in intelligence literature. Here are eleven reasons why, which were offered as hypotheses for a roundtable of extremely experienced practitioners from many three letter agencies to discuss.
Clashes of Civilizations Gave Rise to Martial Arts, but Enlightened Martial Philosophies Reveal the Better Way
(2012-06-08) Andregg, Michael M.Mar
Human beings have studied how bodies can move from time immemorial. Some of those studies have focused on the disciplined development of various skills, like acrobatics, dance and martial art. Millennia of genocides, wars and lesser atrocities have concentrated more attention on the latter than the former, although the former are more beautiful. Thoughtful practitioners of the deadly forms have often devoted considerable thought to ethics or other philosophies that should accompany their craft. This is especially important in martial arts, because to teach those skills means arming people for life with deadly capabilities. So thoughtful teachers in particular have had to worry often about what their students might do with skills once learned. Most of this brief review will be academic history, since ISCSC is a Comparative Civilizations Society, but one of the truisms of martial art is that it is never strictly ‘academic.’ Words on paper cannot begin to express some things at the heart of the art. Therefore, I will begin with a very modern example, towards which the history leads, and end with a physical demonstration. The modern example is the attempt to teach martial ethics to soldiers in the context of learning technique. The soldiers are US Marines who study the forms described by the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP) adopted in 2001 CE (1) and logoed thus:
Creating a Reader on Intelligence Ethics, 2008 for INS
(Intelligence and National Security (a journal), 2008) Andregg, Michael M.
The information age is burying everyone in noise. Globalization increases stress. Then the poorly named Global War on Terror drove some leaders to suspend, or at least radically rethink, ethical constraints that had been settled two generations past, like the unequivocal ban on torture in the Geneva Conventions and many subsequent laws and treaties. This was the context in which we set out to create a reader on intelligence ethics that would, a) actually be read by busy professionals buried in urgent texts, and b) make a real difference in a profession better known for breaking rules. All involved recognized the “oxymoron problem.” All know that while most of our colleagues are moral people trying to do legitimate work to protect their peoples and governments, there are some who certainly think that ethics for spies is the dumbest idea ever. To them we say that intelligence ethics is actually a force multiplier, and dramatic deviations like officially sanctioned torture are force degraders. So 26 intelligence professionals from seven countries collaborated to create a reader designed to be 50 pages maximum, an hour’s read for busy people who recognize why ethics matter, even for spies and the many other intelligence professionals of the modern age. They gathered knowing only half would make the quality cut, and struggled to compress lifetimes of experience into extremely short forms. Each had specific reasons, but the overarching recognition was that national power declines when “all gloves off” immorality prevails. We are engaged in a very “Long War” that is basically between barbarism and civilized ways of life and conflict. There are always tactical voices who seek a quick victory by any means necessary. And real terrorism frightens all thoughtful people, so the danger of becoming that which you oppose has never been greater. This is a story about how that reader was created, with summaries of the 13 essays selected for publication. First, a professor at the National Military Intelligence College (then JMIC) Dr. Jan Goldman, collaborated with a philosopher of ethics with national security background Dr. Jean Maria Arrigo and about six others to create a new “International Intelligence Ethics Association” branching off of the long-running JSCOPE conferences (Joint Services Conference on Professional Ethics). They held their first meetings on January 27 and 28 of 2006, which made the front page of the New York Times precisely because the novelty of ethics for spies was, well, news. Their association can be found at: http://www.intelligence-ethics.org/ and their fourth conference will be at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, MD, February 20-21 of 2009. Inspired by them, I went to the intelligence studies section of the International Studies Association seeking permission to do this project. They concurred, and let me fill one-fourth of their next year’s panels with papers on intelligence ethics of various kinds. Those engaged 18 participants, but some solicited could not come and others were advisors to international leaders who could not participate publicly. From those, 8 other papers were procured. A panel of judges was created. Two were editors of major intelligence publications, one was a former Chancellor of America’s National Intelligence University system, and one was an operator near the end of his career. Their task was to review all submissions and to pick the best half. The authors’ task was to compress what they thought essential into 4 double-spaced manuscript pages. All judges were invited to submit forwards to the final piece, recognizing that most could not. The one who did was INS senior editor Loch Johnson, whose forward will be reprinted here next.
Critical Thinking for Ordinary People and Professional Analysts
(2015-10-02) Andregg, Michael M.
Educators are constantly urged to cultivate “critical thinking.” This would be difficult even if everyone agreed what “critical thinking” is. Which they don’t. Furthermore, many of the teaching aids available on-line or in print were written by philosophers (of logic usually) which makes them hard to understand. Logic has an honored place in critical thinking, but also a big weakness because two highly educated and very intelligent people can have opposite opinions on what is “logical.” Consider the firm opinions of Democrats and Republicans on many issues, for one example, or the evidence presented by ardent proponents of different religions for another. This essay tries to simplify commentary on critical thinking to focus on a few themes that most would agree with. Those will be: 1. Sourcing all data, and searching for multiple, independent sources. 2. Evidence based reasoning contrasted with “authority” and “credibility.” 3. Editorial frames (or “bias”) among sources, and the value of editorial processes. 4. Propaganda, Marketing and Spin Doctoring. 5. Groupthink, Politicization and “Logic.” 6. Financial and other Conflicts of Interest among sources. 7. Statistics 8. Wisdom (ha, try defining that!) versus “facts” and “opinions.”
Cultivating wisdom through a service-learning experience.
(2009-05) Bailey, Andrew
Recent research has indicated that the acquisition of knowledge alone is not sufficient to ensure the common good. As such, this study measured the effectiveness of a service-learning experience in cultivating various personal and interpersonal assets necessary for optimal human development; collectively defined as Wisdom. Wisdom was measured as a latent variable that is evidenced by cognitive, affective and reflective effect indicators (Ardelt, 2003). A quasi-experimental design was used to measure the difference in wisdom attributes for those involved in a service-learning program (n= 288) as compared to a similar control group (n= 321). Wisdom was measured before, after, and one-month following an intense service-learning tour. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to determine the comparative influence of Social Environment, Social Relationships, Openness to Experience, and Civic Attitude on Wisdom domains. Latent Growth Modeling (LGM) was used to determine the growth trajectories of wisdom over the course of five weeks, and to identify variables that influenced those trajectories. Finally, trip components were ranked by mean scores as to their perceived importance in facilitating growth in the three Wisdom domains.Results indicate that service-learning participants reported significant gains in Wisdom domains as a result of the experience, with overall Wisdom scores remaining significant one month after the trip. Control group participants reported declines in all measures, with the exception of Civic Attitude. The proposed SEM demonstrated a strong fit for the data, providing deeper insight into predictors of the development of Wisdom in early adulthood. Implications for the fields of education and recreation are discussed within the context of this study and previous relevant research.
Debating to Win: a discourse on dialogue with some techniques
(Pusan National University published this in South Korea, in Korean language, but I do not know where, 2007-11) Andregg, Michael M.
Debating to Win a discourse on dialogue with some techniques prepared by Michael Andregg of St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, November, 2007 for the MBA program of Pusan National University in Pusan, Republic of Korea mmandregg@stthomas.edu First Principle: There is a vast difference between debate and dialogue, which should be thoroughly understood by people who want to make a difference on this earth. Second Principle: The concept of “winning” has nuances. What, for example is at stake? What are you trying to win: a classic debate, a court battle, an academic argument, a contract, a boardroom dispute, hearts and minds, or a nuclear war? You should answer this question before selecting technique. Third Principle: You are usually talking to multiple audiences simultaneously. All audiences matter, but differently. And many audiences use language quite differently. Fourth Principle: How you say what you say is often more important than what you say. Body language and emotional tone convey more information in many debates than words, and are often more persuasive. But of course, words matter too. Fifth Principle: Insults are often tempting but usually counterproductive. Whenever possible focus on the message, not the messenger, and avoid attacking critics or opponents personally. Humor is far more powerful, if you can do that well. That noted, the difference between debate and dialogue is now essential. With dialogue you can be kind to your opponent and better enlighten the entire community. In debate you must “win,” so you may have to destroy his argument or credibility.
The Decay Phase of Civilizations: Some Comparisons between Rome and the Current Situation
(2011-06-02) Andregg, Michael M.
This 61 slide PowerPoint discusses the "Decay Phase" of civilizations alleged by Carroll Quigley among others with data from the early Third Millennium and the Roman period. There are many, and we are not the only people who have wondered if our current civilization is "decaying" in various ways, moral, economic and practical.
The Developing Global Crisis: A Strategic Paradigm for Understanding Global Conflicts Today
(2017-02-25) Andregg, Michael M.
The Developing Global Crisis: A Strategic Paradigm for Understanding Global Conflicts Today by Michael Andregg, University of St. Thomas, mmandregg@stthomas.edu For the ISA/ISS meetings in Baltimore, MD, USA, Feb. 22-25, 2017 Scheduled for SA-28, Feb. 25, in 326 BCC, -- draft 7 abstract The US Air Force has been at war continuously for over 25 years now, and large areas of its operation like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are still convulsed by wars. Those zones of conflict have grown, adding Syria, Yemen, Somalia and ‘tribal areas’ of Pakistan to the regular Air Force target lists. Dozens of other countries in Asia, Latin America and especially Africa see more discrete visits by US Special Forces with occasionally lethal consequences. Many Americans, including some troops who have deployed into war zones that their parents fought in, are starting to wonder why these wars do not end. The “Developing Global Crisis” is a strategic paradigm that tries to answer that question with a focus on why the wars are starting in the first place, and how to better address their ultimate causes, instead of just symptoms. That is the strategic “solution” to this problem, focus on ultimate causes instead of just symptoms. Those ultimate causes of organized, armed conflict present a disturbing picture because militaries cannot easily influence many of them. This is a main reason such wars are so hard to stop once started. Those forces, or ultimate causes, include population pressure, corruptions of governance, rising authoritarian law and militant religions that interact synergistically, severe and growing income inequalities, and derivative factors like climate change (a consequence of the ever-growing population pressures and corruptions of governance in addition to the obvious burning of fossil fuels and forests). That is six, very tough problems facing human civilization today. Basically, there are too many people trying to live on too little land in most conflict zones today, so genocide or at least ethnic “cleansing” is an option contemplated by far too many people and politicians. Fear of genocides, so amply illustrated by the ancient histories of such areas, also fuels violent resistance to elites. Syria provides an exceptionally vivid case with relatively hard numbers that can illustrate this “Developing Global Crisis” and why that resists solution by ancient and modern military methods. The confluence of WMDs and hundreds of millions of teen-aged males maturing into such desperate circumstances provides real urgency to the task of rethinking the old ways of conceptualizing global conflicts and how to solve them.
The Developing Global Crisis: Executive Summary
(2017-03) Andregg, Michael M.
The Developing Global Crisis: A Strategic Paradigm for Understanding Global Conflicts Today by Michael Andregg, University of St. Thomas, mmandregg@stthomas.edu Prepared for the ISA/ISS meetings in Baltimore, MD, USA, Feb. 22-25, 2017 -- Executive Summary – draft 9 The US Air Force has been at war continuously for over 25 years now, and large areas of its operations like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are still convulsed by wars. Since then, those zones of conflict have grown, adding Syria, Yemen, Somalia and tribal areas of Pakistan to the regular Air Force target lists. Many Americans, including some troops who have deployed into war zones that their parents fought in, are starting to wonder why these wars do not end. The “Developing Global Crisis” is a strategic paradigm that tries to answer that question with a focus on why the wars are starting in the first place, and how to better address their ultimate causes, instead of just symptoms. That is the strategic “solution” to this problem: Focus on ultimate causes instead of just symptoms! Those ultimate causes of organized, armed conflict present a disturbing picture because militaries cannot easily influence many of them. Yet they have very serious consequences. This is a major reason why such wars are so hard to stop once started. Those forces, or ultimate causes, include population pressure, corruptions of governance, rising authoritarian law and militant religions that interact synergistically, severe and growing income inequalities, and derivative factors like climate change (a consequence of the ever-growing population pressures and corruptions of governance in addition to the obvious burning of fossil fuels and forests). That is six, very tough problems facing human civilization today. Basically, there are too many people trying to live on too little land in most conflict zones today, so genocide or at least ethnic “cleansing” is an option contemplated by far too many people and politicians. Fear of genocides, so amply illustrated by the ancient histories of such areas, also fuels violent resistance to elites. Syria provides an exceptionally vivid case with relatively hard numbers that can illustrate this “Developing Global Crisis,” and why that resists solution by both ancient and modern military methods. The confluence of WMDs and hundreds of millions of teen-aged males maturing into such desperate circumstances provides real urgency to the task of rethinking the old ways of conceptualizing global conflicts and how to solve them.
Do Intelligence Bureaucracies Fear Ethics, and if so, Why?
(International Journal of Intelligence Ethics, 2012-10) Andregg, Michael M.
Do Intelligence Bureaucracies Fear Ethics, and if so Why? By Michael Andregg, University of St. Thomas in St. Paul MN USA mmandregg@stthomas.edu For the International Journal of Intelligence Ethics, Fall of 2012 Yes. Why will take longer since the bureaucracies are very defensive about this topic. Introduction: Special Challenges Every intelligence professional knows that the domain they enter presents unusual challenges. Stakes can be extremely high (like life or death for nations, or for your personal infantry squad). Information is always incomplete and all too often incorrect. Moral ambiguities abound, and tradeoffs between alternative outcomes can be excruciatingly painful. Least evil options are sometimes the only options available better than watching catastrophe unfold. To be considered a professional by polite society one must belong to a group mature enough to have developed codes of ethics, among many other issues of standards, training, expected skills, duties and such. It took doctors and attorneys centuries to develop their codes, and issues still remain or emerge anew with new technologies. So this is not an easy process even for normal organizations (1, 2) which intelligence bureaucracies are not. We do not have centuries to linger on nuances now, because nuclear, biological and other ‘special’ weapons could destroy our civilization. So a sense of urgency is appropriate. Intelligence failures sometimes precede catastrophic wars. Politicians and their policy people often blame intelligence staff for their own policy failures (see “Elephants in the Room” to follow). But after the carnage is done, finding who to blame is a sad exercise among tragic people most of whom were sworn to protect the innocents of their countries. Bureaucracies are not people. They are composed of people, like a human body is made of cells. But bureaucracies have emergent properties, system dynamics, capabilities and behaviors that go far beyond what any individual human or cell could accomplish. Bureaucracies have no souls or conscience in the human sense, but they fear ethics and oversight. This is why they often crucify whistleblowers. Fear is seldom the stated reason, but it is often the real reason. Some secrets should be exposed, lest they lead to waste, fraud, abuse or the murder of thousands of innocents. But the mantra of protecting sources and methods generally prevails, even when the real reason for secrecy is bureaucratic incompetence, sloth or mortal sin. Finally, be assured that you can put good people into a dysfunctional system, and that bad system can then put the good people to work on very evil ends. Totalitarian governments provide numerous examples from history. Most of them are gone now; a warning to those who think the status quo is stable. So bringing ethics to intelligence bureaucracies is not easy, but is important. I am not a moralist, rather a practical person trying to preserve civilizations faced with profound challenges in the third millennium of the Common Era. So I beg you to attend, and to do better than I have as you move forward. The order of presentation will be: 1) a brief history of the quest for ethics for spies, 2) a quick survey of a dozen U.S. intelligence agencies, 3) discussion of ‘Elephants in the Room’ that are seldom mentioned where everyone has been scrubbed by security clearances, and 4) conclusions about why systemic, bureaucratic fear of ethics is a primary cause of other problems that bedevil those guardians who would like to be called professionals of intelligence.
Ethical Dilemmas in War and Peace
(Busan National University in South Korea, 2002-04-22) Andregg, Michael M.
War confronts us with some of the most difficult ethical dilemmas in human experience. Peace is less stressful, but even maintaining the peace can be more difficult than it appears. Restoring peace once lost can be daunting, and can present the responsible citizen with moral dilemmas every bit as challenging as those faced by soldiers at war. In both circumstances, the leaders of nation states must face stark tradeoffs as they decide whom to provide with resources and who not. In the worst cases, they must decide who lives, and who dies. And of course, soldiers at war do this also, and occasionally the ordinary citizen. Then there are issues like torture, and treatment of prisoners of war, and treatment of civilian refugees, and whether to intervene in conflicts among neighbors or not, and if so, how. Each of these may seem easy in the abstract, but they are very, very difficult when the people are real and the facts of the case unclear, which is common. It takes days to discuss the nuances of such dilemmas, but the decisions of real people faced with morally difficult choices must sometimes be made in the blink of an eye. Then, they may be judged by others far away and years later. We do not have days today, so I will begin with a simple outline of the types of hard questions faced by four actors in the dramas of war and peace. They are: the soldier, the citizen, peacemakers and leaders of governments. I will consider their dilemmas in a slightly different order below. For the Soldier: 1. When is it appropriate to kill? 2. When is killing required? 3. How should I treat civilians? 4. Should I distinguish between “able bodied men” and women or children? 5. Can I distinguish between the “innocent” and the “guilty?” And whether or not I can, can landmines or a 1000-kilogram bomb? 6. How should I treat my enemies, even while killing them? 7. How should I treat POWs? [Prisoner’s of War] What if they know secrets that could save millions? 8. When is torture justified, if ever, and why? 9. When can orders be disobeyed? 10. When MUST orders be disobeyed? 11. If the laws of war contradict the orders of my leader (or my God) what should I do?
How "Wisdom" Differs from Intelligence and Knowledge in the Context of National Intelligence Agencies
(2003-02-28) Andregg, Michael M.
It is customary at this point to spend considerable time defining key terms like wisdom, intelligence and knowledge. I will come back to that after cutting to the bone of the topic at hand. Wisdom has a longer time horizon than either intelligence or knowledge. It spans a greater scope of concern, and reflects a set of values infused into knowledge that include compassion as a core component. It requires a deep understanding of human nature, because it is only called upon during crises of human affairs. All the rest is details, which can distract from these cardinal truths. With respect to issues of international security, this difference is exemplified by cases like Afghanistan (1979-89), Guatemala (1954) and Iran (1953-79). In each case focus on short-term, narrowly defined and mainly American national interests resulted in significant tactical victories. The long-term cost has been generating intense hatred of America among hundreds of millions of people worldwide. That hatred has diffuse military and economic consequences that are difficult to measure, but by any measure are profound. Of course there are excuses for this sacrifice of long-term, general welfare for short-term, narrow goals. But such excuses should not obscure the great price to thoughtful intelligence professionals, who undoubtedly do care about the future of their countries and their children.
Intelligence Ethics: An Uncompleted Project
(2018-04-05) Andregg, Michael M.
Intelligence Ethics: An Uncompleted Project Michael Andregg, University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, MN, USA, mmandregg@stthomas.edu for the 2018 ISA Conference in San Francisco, TB-57, April 5, 2018, 10:30 am – 12:15 pm [submitted to INASIS in Brazil but no news back] abstract d-7 The International Studies Association (ISA) helped to develop a very slowly emerging sub-field called intelligence ethics. ISA’s Intelligence Studies Section has been a venue for many efforts to develop literature on ethics for spies. For one example, we hosted three panels with 18 papers on that topic in 2007, contributing to a reader on intelligence ethics that was used by the CIA and DIA for a while. Dr. Jan Goldman of the NIU, FBI and other positions, also presented papers at ISA, and edited the “Scarecrow Professional Intelligence Education Series” that published 13 books, three focused on ethics for intelligence professionals. He started an international ethics association, and a peer-reviewed journal. However, this worthy effort to professionalize intelligence education with an ethical dimension was and remains greatly slowed by something Dr. Goldman labeled “ethics phobia” among the bureaucracies. The association is now dormant and the journal’s last print edition was in 2013. Senior executive Brian Snow also tried at NSA, where a team of colleagues created a model code of ethics for collectors that did not gain traction for similar reasons. Individual and institutional concerns result in a “fear” of ethics among many three-letter US-IC agencies. What agencies fear, practitioners avoid because children need feeding and pensions have meaning. Many definitions of a “profession” require a professional code of ethics to guide their craft, as doctors developed their “Hippocratic Oath,” and attorneys developed their “Model Code of Professional Conduct” for lawyers. It is time ‘professional’ spies did so also. Some comparisons with non-Western countries will conclude that this is a problem only for societies that already embrace concepts like ‘rule of law’ and ‘individual liberties.’ No one expects the spies of brutal, police state dictators to eschew deception, betrayal, propaganda, torture or even killing of critics in service to the power of their immoral leaders.
Introduction to a special edition of the International Journal of Intelligence Ethics
(International Journal of Intelligence Ethics, 2012-09) Andregg, Michael M.
IIEA Journal fall 2012, Draft 1, Entry 2: Published as: Vol. 3, No. 2 / Fall/Winter, 2012. Introduction This journal edition began with an essay that Jan Goldman wrote in 2007 titled: “Ethicsphobia and the U.S. National Intelligence Community: Just say ‘No’” (1). In this he claimed there was an actual fear of ethics among some parts of the bureaucracy that he knew well as a professor at what is now called the National Intelligence University (NIU) and as a former practitioner for the Defense Intelligence Agency. So I arranged a panel to look at this question specifically in 2012, “Do Intelligence Bureaucracies Fear Ethics, and if so, Why?” All but one of the papers to follow are products of that panel, and the outlier was created by teams working on ethics issues under guidance from Dr. Goldman’s successor at NIU, JD and retired Army Col. Christopher Bailey. It begins with a view from Britain by Mark Phythian of Lancaster who has been a real pioneer of intelligence studies in the UK, followed by a focus on Africa and “Authoritarian State Security Apparatus” by a former Ambassador to the African Union, Cindy Lou Courville, now another professor at America’s NIU. Then comes Bailey’s exposition on U.S. intelligence community ethos, and defense of oversight in what he claims is “a closely regulated profession.” We will debate that a bit here, but this is certainly the common view among people inside the security clearance cocoon. No doubt they see all the inefficiencies, like we dwell on the victims of error. That is followed by what was the most interesting paper to me, a brief look at “Codes of Ethics” across America’s IC including 6 quite different and interesting proposals generated by teams of students at NIU. Those are typically mid-career intelligence professionals from the uniformed services, Majors and Captains mostly, with a few civilian employees of our Pentagon related intelligence agencies. They took their task seriously and the range of ideas they came up with is especially instructive and engaging. Then comes my paper, the dullest no doubt, but also the most pointed critique of assumptions and blind spots that come with the classified Kool-Aid. Book reviews round out this edition of the International Journal of Intelligence Ethics, by Stephen Kershnar of Alhoff’s “Terrorism, Time Bombs and Torture: a Philosophical Analysis,” by Professor Bailey of Christopher Perry’s edited “In the Balance: The Administration of Justice and National Security in Democracies,” and by Ian Fishback of Fried and Fried’s “Because it is Wrong: Torture, Privacy and Presidential Power in the Age of Terror.” Now, a bit more detail on the substantive papers.
Legacy and Wisdom of Joanne Disch PhD RN FAAN
(Sagis Corporation and the University of Minnesota School of Nursing Katharine J Densford International Center for Nursing Leadeship, 2013) Linderman, Albert; Linderman, Albert
Albert Linderman, Ph.D., cultural anthropologist, and CEO of Sagis Corporation has for more than 10 years, been eliciting, surfacing, and representing, with his Sagis team, the “deep smarts and wisdom” of leaders and experts. This surfacing and representation allows for the transference to others. Effective also with groups, this Sense‐Making approach, adapted from the work of Paulo Freire and Brenda Dervin, has been used with great results in many businesses and organizations in Minnesota. Albert also is the author of Why the world around you is and as it appears (2012, Steiner Books) and lead author of "Surfacing and transferring expert knowledge: the sense making interview," Human Resource Development International (07/2011: 14(3): 353‐362). This document summarizes the wisdom and legacy of Dr. Disch who developed her mastery through the many leadership positions she has undertaken during her career. She came to Minnesota in 1991 as Senior Associate Director/Director of Nursing of the University of Minnesota Hospital and Clinic. She oversaw a mammoth re‐organization and, in 1997, became the VP of Patient/Family Services of the merged Fairview Riverside Hospital and the University of Minnesota Hospital. In 2000, she became the Director for the Katharine J. Densford International Center for Nursing Leadership, a position she held until 2012. Along the way she served numerous significant positions of leadership, most notably as Interim Dean of the University of Minnesota School of Nursing (UMN SoN) (2004), President of the AAN (2011‐2013) and Chair of the Board of AARP (2006‐ 2008).
Legacy and Wisdom of Sandra Edwardson PhD Dean of the School of Nursing 1991-2004
(Sagis Corporation and the University of Minnesota School of Nursing Katharine J Densford International Center for Nursing Leadeship, 2013-08) Linderman, Albert
In the summer of 2013 the Katharine J. Densford International Center for Nursing Leadership (K. J. Densford Center) Director, Daniel Pesut, asked Albert Linderman to partner with the School of Nursing to interview retired Dean Sandra Edwardson, who served as Dean from 1991 to 2004. The partnership’s goal was to provide historically significant documentation of her deanship as well as to elicit and represent her experiential wisdom for the benefit of others. Sandra Edwardson’s deanship, 1991- 2004, provided a needed bridge to allow the University of Minnesota School of Nursing to advance from its former status as an innovative education focused school to the sophisticated, technologically savvy, integrative health conscious force that it is today. She guided significant culture change during her tenure, emphasizing practice-based research and the building of a research focused faculty that has allowed the school to blossom under the leadership of current Dean Connie Delaney. During the summer of 2013, Albert Linderman of Sagis Corporation had the privilege to engage in interviewing Dr. Edwardson focused on her career as Dean. With the use of Sense Making Methodology, Dr. Linderman elicited significant insights from Dr. Edwardson. Linderman also surveyed numerous documents and interviewed others, including Dean Connie Delaney, faculty member Linda Halcon, and the Katharine J. Densford International Center for Nursing Leadership Director Daniel Pesut. These activities and findings serve as the foundation for this report.
Liberty versus Tyranny: An Ancient and Ongoing Struggle between Good and Evil
(2019-07) Andregg, Michael M.
This PowerPoint presentation reviews struggles between liberty and tyrannies across several ancient and modern civilizations. As with PowerPoints generally, it is stronger on visuals and weaker on scholarly text or citations.

University Digital Conservancy

Browse by Subject

Browsing by Subject "Wisdom"