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.

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.

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

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 32^nd 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, 2^nd ed.

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.

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.

Solve the Problem with Adversarial Collaboration

Summer is the season for barbeques and poolside gatherings with family and friends, but some of us may be concerned that unintended arguments may erupt at these events. Have you ever found yourself part of a conversation that heated up quickly and accomplished nothing? Have you ever witnessed how a divisive comment sparked conflict at a family gathering? Do you feel as if it is becoming impossible—even dangerous—to talk about politics or current events in mixed company? You are not alone! The art of reasoned dialogue seems to be dying, and we need help finding a way to revive it.

One solution is to employ Adversarial Collaboration techniques. They were first developed by Richards J. Heuer, Jr. when he was working as a counterintelligence officer for the Central Intelligence Agency. At the time, Heuer found himself immersed in several highly contentious debates, and it prompted him to develop and refine some simple techniques, including:

Key Assumptions Check:  Ask your friends what basic assumptions they are making about the issue before discussing the merits of their positions or the policy options currently under consideration.
Mutual Understanding: Get your friends to agree to describe your position—and why you think that—until they get it right, and then try to describe their position—and their line of reasoning—until they say you got it right. You may be surprised by how hard this is. One key benefit is that you quickly learn what facts or “alternative facts” each side is using to buttress its case.
Joint Escalation: If the issue is of utmost importance, take some time to jointly develop two short position papers that present both points of view AND that each side can accept as an accurate rendition of their position. Then present the papers to a neutral “referee” to evaluate.
The Nosenko Approach: Build a case for your position and have your friends build a case for their positions. Then stipulate which evidence each of you believes is of critical importance in making the case, and require the others to address it when compiling their argument. Share your position papers and vote on which one makes the most sense.

Learn more about these techniques in the Adversarial Collaboration chapter of Heuer and Pherson’s Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis, 2^nd ed., available from our Analyst’s Bookshop.

If you want to know more about the man who developed these Adversarial Collaboration techniques (and many others), check out the recently-published memoir Rethinking Intelligence: The Life and Public Service of Richards J. Heuer, Jr. The 86-page memoir chronicles Heuer’s ground-breaking contributions to the intelligence profession and provides insights to the following questions:

• What makes someone susceptible to recruitment as a spy?
• How do I know I am being deceived?
• What inspired Heuer to develop the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) methodology?
• How did Heuer come to recognize the implications of cognitive bias for intelligence analysis and write Psychology of Intelligence Analysis?
• How have Structured Analytic Techniques (SATs) emerged as a new domain in intelligence analysis?

June is here – for many, it marks the end of a college career and preparation for the “real world.” Looming decisions can overwhelm a new graduate – or any of us.  For example, many new graduates must decide: Which job should I seek or choose? Which new housing arrangement works best for me?  Should I drive, bicycle, or take public transport to work? Other key decisions many of us may need to make include: Where should we go for our vacation? What options are best for my elderly parents? Using a Decision Matrix will help you, the decision maker, weigh your options analytically.

Use the Decision Matrix when you have multiple criteria for making a decision or you need to maximize a specific set of goals or preferences. The technique deconstructs a problem into its component parts and lets you see in one display all aspects of the decision process. The steps are:

1. Create a matrix and list your options across the top of the matrix.
2. List your criteria for making a decision down the left side of the matrix.
3. Assign a weight to each criterion by dividing 100 percentage points among the criteria.
4. Work across the matrix row by row distributing 10 points among the various options. The options with the most points best satisfy the criteria; the options with the fewest points least satisfy the criteria.
5. Add up the total points in each column. Your best choice should be the option with the most points.

Let’s try a simple example. You would like to get a job as an analyst, especially at an intelligence agency, and wonder what books you should read to be more competitive. You heard that many IC analysts use Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis, but it costs $70. What other options should you consider and would they be a smarter choice?

1. Purchase the most authoritative book on structured techniques that analysts often reference for $70.
2. Make yourself a better analytic thinker and writer by buying Critical Thinking for Strategic Intelligence and Analytic Writing Guide for $61.
3. Purchase a set of Guides that focus on key functions: Analytic Writing Guide, Analytic Briefing Guide, Handbook of Analytic Tools and Techniques, and Psychology of Intelligence Analysis for $73.
4. Build your network to gain access to those who may hire you by registering as a student member of two intelligence community associations (e,g,. IAFIE, INSA, AFCEA) for $70.

With four options under consideration, it is time to fill out the Decision Matrix. If you question some of the values we have provided in the matrix, change them and calculate your own personal scores.

Decision Matrix Criteria	% Weight	SAT Book	Critical Thinking	Analyst Guides	Membership
Be a better analyst	30%	2 (60 pts)	3 (90 pts)	4 (120 pts)	1 (30 pts)
Get an IC job	40%	4 (160 pts)	2 (80 pts)	2 (80 pts)	2 (80 pts)
Get an analyst job	30%	3 (90 pts)	3 (90 pts)	2 (60 pts)	2 (60 pts)
Total Score	100%	310 pts	260 pts	260 pts	170 pts

Analysis of the Decision Matrix would reveal:

• If you want an IC job, you probably should pay the $70 for the SAT book.
• If you want any job as an analyst, either the SAT book or the Critical Thinking package would serve you well.
• If you just want to be a better analyst, you probably should buy the Guides.

Indicators are a pre-established set of observable phenomena that are reviewed periodically to track developments, identify trends, and warn of unanticipated change. They provide an initial, objective baseline that enhances the rigor and credibility of any analysis. They can also be used to validate existing hypotheses or viewpoints and assess whether a forecasted scenario is emerging.

When President Trump took office, predictions of what would occur under his Administration varied widely. Globalytica saw this uncertainty as providing an opportunity to conduct an Indicators exercise in January to assess the accuracy of our associates’ forecasts about how extensive the changes brought by the new administration might be.

The Method. Three days before President Trump was inaugurated, we surveyed 30 associates. We asked them to identify whether they are Trump Supporters or Trump Non-Supporters and to answer the following two questions:

• What three things (Indicators) would you expect to see—and would like to happen—in the first 100 days of the Trump Administration?
• What three things (Indicators) would you expect to see—and are afraid will happen—in the first 100 days of the Trump Administration?

Our associates provided about 70 anonymous responses (Indicators) to each question; the responses were sorted into two groups based on whether they were generated by Trump Supporters or Trump Non-Supporters. In Figure 1, we have captured the key Indicators generated by the survey—limiting each category to the twelve most representative responses.

Now that the Trump Administration has passed its 100-day mark, we have reviewed the four lists generated by our January exercise and scored each Indicator using a 5-point scale to reflect the degree to which the Indicator happened in the first 100 days. To ease readability, different shades of color represent high and low scores.

The Results.

• All of us saw a lot more things that we hoped would happen than things we were afraid would occur. This would suggest our levels of anxiety were too high.
• Trump Supporters saw more things they were afraid would happen actually occur than Non-Supporters.
• Trump Non-Supporters saw more of their indicators come true than Trump Supporters.

These findings are preliminary: most of the Indicators have yet to play out fully, and future developments could reverse these trends. Globalytica plans to review the Indicators at every 100-day milestone of the Trump Presidency. The Analytic Insider will track and publish the results at each milestone which will enable you to monitor the progress of this project.

For a fuller description of Indicators, order your copy of Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis, 2nd ed. here. To learn more about our associated online training opportunities, including the two-week online Critical Thinking Fundamentals course we teach monthly, visit our training page.

With FBI Director James Comey’s recent testimony confirming an active FBI investigation into whether associates of President Trump were in contact with Moscow, allegations continue to swirl around the true nature of the President’s relationship with Russia. Some see this as “sour grapes” posturing by supporters of Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton who still cannot accept the fact that Trump won the election. Others contend that a serious national security vulnerability may exist.

Advocates of either position believe there is nothing they can say that will get the other side to agree with them. But do not despair. One structured analytic technique—Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH)—has a proven record of convincing one’s adversaries to admit that they are wrong.

The traditional approach to deciding who is right is to list all the evidence and arguments that support each position and then decide who has made the strongest case. With the ACH technique you flip this approach, focusing instead on how much of the available information is inconsistent with each explanation of the behavior being observed. You then reject those explanations that have compelling inconsistent evidence. The remaining explanation—or hypothesis—that best fits with all the relevant information is most likely to be right. Usually, when people who have different positions on a given issue work the problem in this manner, they will often be persuaded that they were wrong when confronted with compelling inconsistent information—e.g., information that just should not be there if your favored hypothesis were to be correct.

Now it is your turn—How Tight is Trump with Russia?

Step 1: Generate a set of possible explanations of President Trump’s behavior—a comprehensive and mutually exclusive set of hypotheses that would explain his interaction with the Russians.

A: Strategic Vision. Trump’s pro-Russia stance reflects his strategic vision of the utility of forging a strategic alliance with Moscow to counter the threats posed by mutual antagonists such as China and ISIS.

B: The Bromance. Trump’s pro-Russia stance is a product of his genuine admiration of Russian President Putin and his no-nonsense style of governing.

C. Financial Vulnerability. Trump’s pro-Russia stance is driven by a desire to protect his financial investments in Russia and possible substantial indebtedness to Russian kleptocrats.

D. FSB Recruitment. Trump’s pro-Russia stance is evidence that Russian intelligence has recruited Trump to serve either wittingly or unwittingly as an agent of Russian influence in the West. The FSB has developed sufficient leverage over Trump (or has sufficient material to blackmail Trump), hence he is strongly inclined to promote Russian policies and support Moscow’s positions.

Some of these scenarios might look familiar. Charles Krauthammer in a 17 February Washington Post column offered two scenarios that defined the ends of a spectrum: 1) Trump as the great dealmaker who charms Putin into a Nixon-to-China bargain to destroy the Islamic state and relieve some of the financial burden of the European partnership, and 2) a Trump leadership team that is compromised by tainted business or other activities known to the Russians to whom they are now captive. Krauthammer says: “I believe neither of these scenarios, but I’m hard put to come up with alternatives. The puzzle remains.” A good strategy for solving the puzzle is to apply the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses technique.

Step 2: Make a list of all the information, key assumptions, and absence of evidence that are relevant to the issue.

Make a list of all relevant information such as all statements by Trump or his close coterie about issues that are of direct interest to Russia including NATO, the coherence of the EU, the status of Crimea, the failure of Moscow to retaliate when sanctioned by the previous US administration, etc.

Step 3: Assess each item of information to determine if it is Consistent or Inconsistent with each hypothesis. The hypothesis with the most compelling set of relevant information that is Inconsistent is the least likely to be true. The hypothesis with the least Inconsistent data is most likely to be correct.

Evaluate each item of evidence against each of the four hypotheses. Ask yourself: “if this hypothesis is correct, would I expect to observe this item of evidence?”

• Count up all the Inconsistent items of relevant information for each hypothesis and rank the hypotheses from most to least likely reflecting how many Inconsistents each hypothesis has.
• Starting with the hypothesis with the most Inconsistents; assess whether the Inconsistents make a compelling case for dismissing that hypothesis.
• The most likely explanation for Trump’s behavior will be the hypothesis with the least—or no—Inconsistents.

More information on the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses technique can be found in Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis, Chapter 7, available here.