A gallery of legacy spectra, stripped of their original context.
In 2006, Barton S. Whaley produced a second version of Detecting Deception: A Bibliography of Counterdeception Across Time, Cultures and Disciplines, a comprehensive bibliography on counter-deception. He rates each work listed in the biography:
Each of the following bibliographic entries has been rated on a 0-to-5 star basis. These ratings represent: a) my personal judgment in areas of specialization as with much of political & military intelligence, conjuring, and the history & philosophy of science plus strong data bases in parts of sociology and cognitive psychology; and b) my assessment based on my own weak knowledge of some other domains or non-English languages checked against peer reviews and summaries. Note that these “stars” have been assigned not for a work’s general excellence but only for its specific relevance to detection and deception. Consequently, certain otherwise widely recognized creative masterpieces such as those by English mathematician Alan Turing (1950), German political theorist Hannah Arendt (1963), and American Nobel physicist Luis Alvarez (1987) get only 2 or 3-star rating here. And, for those readers who seek a “second opinion”, I supplement my own judgments with reviews (marked “REV:”) by third parties of many of the more controversial books and articles.
These are the works Whaley gives 5 stars:
- J. Bowyer Bell, Dragonworld (II): Deception, Tradecraft, and the Provisional IRA, “International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, Vol.8, No.1 (Spring 1995), 21-50.
- Ladislav Bittman, The Deception Game: Czechoslovak Intelligence in Soviet Political Warfare
- Richard Christie, Studies in Machiavellianism
- W. Crawley, Is It Genuine? A Guide to the Identification of Eighteenth-Century English Furniture
- Donald C. Daniel, Strategic Military Deception
- Donald C. Daniel, “Deception in Military Affairs: Propositions for Historical Analysis”
- Paul Ekman, Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Market Place, Politics and Marriage
- Col. George Armand Furse, Information in War: Its Acquisition and Transmission
- William R. Harris, Counter-Deception Planning: Strategy and Organization
- Eric Hebborn, The Art Forger’s Handbook
- Richards J. Heuer, Jr., Guidelines for Analyzing Competing Hypotheses
- Richards J. Heuer, Jr., “Nosenko: Five Paths to Judgment,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol.31, No.3 (Fall 1987)
- Richards J. Heuer, Jr., “Analysis of Competing Hypotheses”
- R. V. Jones, Air Scientific Intelligence, Report No.13, “D.T.”
- R. V. Jones, “The Theory of Practical Joking—Its Relevance to Physics”, Bulletin of the Institute of Physics (London: June 1957), 193-201
- R. V. Jones, “The Theory of Practical Joking—An Elaboration”, Bulletin of the Institute of
Mathematics and its Applications, Vol.11, No.1/2 (Jan/Feb 1975), 10-17
- R. V. Jones, The Wizard War: British Scientific Intelligence, 1939-1945
- R. V. Jones, Reflections on Intelligence
- B. H. Liddell Hart, Strategy
- Dr. Edmond Locard, L’Enquête Criminelle et les Méthodes Scientifiques [Criminal Investigation and Scientific Methods]
- Niccolo Machiavelli, The Chief Works and Others
- Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Army Diary, 1899-1926
- George A. Miller, “The Magic Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information,”Psychological Review, Vol.63 (1956), 81-97
- David Mure, Master of Deception: Tangled Webs in London and the Middle East
- John von Neumann/Oskar Morgenstern, The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior
- Henri Poincaré, “Mathematical Creation,” in George Bruce Halsted (editor and translator), The Foundations of Science
- Alfred Price, Instruments of Darkness: The History of Electronic Warfare
- David A. Schum, The Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning
- Claude E. Shannon, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication”
- The Skeptical Inquirer
- Frank J. Stech/Christopher Elsässer, “Midway Revisited: Detecting Deception by Analysis of Competing Hypothesis”
- Jim Steinmeyer, Hiding the Elephant: How Magicians Invented the Impossible and Learned to Disappear
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War (translated by Samuel B. Griffith)
- Juan Tamariz, The Magic Way: The theory of false solutions and the magic way
- Barton S. Whaley, Stratagem: Deception and Surprise in War
- Barton S. Whaley, “Toward a General Theory of Deception“
- Barton S. Whaley, “Detecting Deception: Practice, Practitioners, and Theory”
- Roberta Wohlstetter, Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision
In 2006, Barton S. Whaley produced a second version of Detecting Deception: A Bibliography of Counterdeception Across Time, Cultures and, a comprehensive bibliography on counter-deception (props MountainRunner, originally circulated by J. Michael Waller). According to Whaley, Detecting Deception has three goals:
- To be the first standard guide to the literature on detection and intelligence analysis in general.
- To point the reader to those specific writings most useful for analysis, research, development, teaching, or training.
- To alert the reader to the main competing theories and methods used for analyzing mysteries, particularly where deception is present.
Whaley’s introduction to his bibliography covers a lot of ground.
On the definition of deception:
[A]ny attempt—by words or actions—intended to distort another person’s or group’s perception of reality. And to keep matters simple, a lie is any statement made with the intent to deceive. These definitions avoid confusion with mere misinformation, incomplete information, or the truth value of statements. But they do permit us to include the authorized lies and deceptions practiced with our knowledge and approval by stage actors, magicians, and poker players. Moreover, this definition gets around the worrisome problem of self-deception. Instead, for our present purpose, the target of a deception is not oneself but always another’s mind.
On the “ideals” of deception and detecting deception:
The ideal deception makes the victim certain but wrong. Ideal detection reveals the truth behind the lie, the face beneath the mask, the reality under the camouflage. Good detection spares us from unwelcome surprises.
On the ideal outcome of deception:
Surprise? It’s only in the mind of the victim. Surprise is simply the perception that something (an event and/or the process by which it changes) is happening contrary to expectations. If we have a weak understanding of “ground truth” and how it changes naturally as well as how our perceptions of it can be manipulated by others, we’ll be often and greatly surprised. But, if we have a more-or-less accurate notion of events and processes we’ll be seldom and little surprised. It is the detective’s, the analyst’s job to understand these events and processes.
Counterdeception? Counterdeception is merely convenient shorthand for “the detection of deception” and is now standard jargon among specialists in military deception.
On the eternal nature of deception:
Our geographical environments tend to change slowly. Our social and political systems and institutions shift back and forth. It is only our technologies that have advanced slowly in antiquity, more rapidly since the Renaissance, and faster and ever faster over the past two centuries. Intelligence analysts confront this most dramatically in the ever-growing volume of data, the increasing speed at which information is transmitted, the evolving technical sophistication of some communication systems, and the speed-up in long-distance transportation of personnel and materials.
But is this Revolution or Evolution? Although we speak of the Information Revolution or the Revolution in Intelligence or the Revolution in Military Affairs with even greater awe than a recent generation did of the Industrial Revolution, we exaggerate. The rate at which new information is generated was already great enough by the early 1800s that not only new disciplines but entirely new sub-specialties had to be founded to cope. Thus “biology” didn’t become a recognized specialty until 1819, “psychiatry” until 1828, and “physicist” until around 1840.
But psychology doesn’t change. Or, at most, imperceptibly over the past two or more millenniums through the slow creep of genetic mutation. The Greek atomist and Chinese Confucian philosophers, Italian politician Machiavelli, and English dramatist Shakespeare understood this unchanging nature of human motives, emotions, perceptions, and misperceptions long before our modern evolutionary psychologists rediscovered it.
Consequently, because deception is a psychological mind-game, it doesn’t change. However, the technology used to communicate disinformation does change. The only other changes are in our theories of how deception works and our techniques for detecting deceptions.
On the shared characteristics of great detectives:
- They are curiosity driven, so much so that they will persist well beyond regular hours, returning again and again until the mystery is solved.
- They have a “prepared mind”, one loaded by experience and/or education with a large enough data base to quickly recognize and evaluate analogous situations.
- They are intuitive, logical but through pursuing other than direct linear thinking. Moreover, the logic they following is, specifically, not the familiar Deductive or Inductive types, but that less trodden path which for the past 12 decades has been known to logicians and theoretical scientists as Retroduction (or Abduction). See particularly Eco (1984) and Haack (2003). Other scientists have called it variously The Method of Zadig, The Method, Inverse Probability, or my favorite, Retrospective Prophesy. This sounds like a contradiction in terms for anyone who thinks that any mystery has ever been solved or any deception ever detected by “connecting the dots.” In fact this is just projecting backward from an observed or reported effect (outcome) to its most probable cause (origin). This prime method of detection is not particularly rare. It is common among all theoretical physicists, most magicians, many mathematicians and medical diagnosticians, and some police detectives. It is, however, still too rare among intelligence analysts.
[A]round the end of 1942 [during World War II], when Major Oliver Thynne discovered that the Germans had learned to distinguish the dummy British aircraft from the real ones because the flimsy dummies were supported by struts under their wings. At that time Major Thynne was a novice planner with Brigadier Dudely Clarke’s “A” Force. When Major Thynne reported this interesting intelligence to his boss, Clarke, the “master of deception” fired back:
“Well, what have you done about it?”
“Done about it Dudley? What could I do about it?”
“Tell them to put struts under the wings of all the real one’s, of course!”
– from Cheating and Deception
While there are only six kinds of cheating there is only one way to cheat. To cheat, one chooses from one or more of the six categories one or more CHARACTERISTICS [MASKING, REPACKAGING, DAZZLING, MIMICKING, INVENTING, DECOYING] and fashions this into a RUSE that creates an ILLUSION of either COVER or EFFECT.
The role of the ruse is key:
The RUSE is the process of choosing first the appropriate category, such as dazzling or mimicking, and then the necessary number of characteristics to create either a COVER or and EFFECT…There is an endless number of possible RUSES, just as one can consider an almost endless number of characteristics (going down, if need be, to the level of subatomic particles) but each must be fashioned by the planner from one or more varieties of the six categories of cheating…RUSES, whether used to COVER or EFFECT, themselves tend to fall into five categories:
In all five categories the RUSE fashioned by the planner creates a COVER or an EFFECT for the potential victim who, it is hoped, will accept the ILLUSION.
The illusion is where the ruse is tested by reality:
Once the appropriate category or categories has been selected by the planner, the necessary characteristics fashioned into a RUSE for one of the five basic purposes, either a COVER or an EFFECT—both illusory—exists. This is the crucial moment for the planner, for his opponents must accept the ILLUSION if he is to be cheated or deceived…the crux of the matter is whether the EFFECT or COVER will create an effective ILLUSION.
If art is all ILLUSION, aesthetic forgery, then there is some comfort in considering that science seeks the truth, reality, that both scientific practitioners and observers regard self-deception as a potential disaster on the road to discovery. Scientists at all times and places have, like most humans, been deceived by their own arrogance and pride, their commitment to the comfortable, their reluctance to speculate further than the first triumph. If a major scientific theory represents the conventional wisdom, most scientists will first try to discard contradictory discoveries or reluctantly attempt to fit them into the existing framework rather than discard the received wisdom. The dream of the artist is to make something new, but the flawed scientist does the reverse, often seeking to avoid the new under the assumption that reality is already to hand. In fact much of Western science is constructed on several assumptions—that the universe is complex but not malicious; that there is a real, explicable reality; that the rules don’t change; that the simplest explanation is best (probably right—a variant of Occam’s Razor). When there are too many “facts” to fit a theory comfortably, there is an uneasy feeling: since the universe is not malicious then the existing explanation is not simple enough, not adequately elegant—something is wrong. Cheating is not the intention of the scientific method, whereas it is the only means of the artist. The scientists ILLUSIONS may be more compelling than reality, but they are still ILLUSIONS, cheating by mutual consent.
– from Cheating and Deception
The cheating process always follows the Deception Planning Loop:
(It’s reminiscent of the OODA loop.)
The Loop is only half as complex as it, appears, since the analysis and design halves are mirror images of each other. The entire cheating process can be presented as a simple linear sequence from the senior commander’s strategic goal to the deception planner’s goal. The general wants to surprise the enemy and win the battle as part of a grand strategy to achieve total victory. To do so he resorts to a deception stratagem…If the enemy accepts the illusion then the general’s deception goal contributed to his strategic goal, winning. With rare exceptions successful deception requires a goal beyond deceit alone. Few cheat solely for the pleasure of so doing but in pursuit of some goal, and this is particularly true of military matters. Generally, cheating is a purposeful human activity that contributes to a greater ambition. And the process always follows the Deception Planning Loop defined by category, fashioning a RUSE from characteristics that are projected by selected CHANNEL as an EFFECT or COVER that, if successful, creates an ILLUSION made up of the perceived characteristics that is, therefore, a successful STRATAGEM supporting the Deception Goal and hence the Strategic Goal. Every time.
The most effective way to conceal a simple mystery is behind another mystery. This is literary legerdemain. You do not fool the reader by hiding clues or faking character a la Christie but by making him solve the wrong problem.
- physical deception: the various adaptations nature has evolved to protect various species
- psychological deception: the manipulation of human perception
Both physical and psychological deception share:
…two broad categories in the structure of deceit, hiding the real and showing the false. The second category cannot exist without the first, for all deception and cheating involves hiding. Level one deception, hiding, is itself divided into three distinct parts: masking, repackaging, and dazzling. Level-two deception, showing, also has three parts: mimicking, inventing, and decoying…
The basic purpose of hiding is to screen or cloak a person, place, thing, direction, or time by a variety of means that range from the simple to the complex. These combined means hide by producing a cover. The basic purpose of showing is consciously to display the false which, perforce, must hide the real. In showing, the end result is to create an EFFECT, an illusion of the false as real. All SHOWING involves hiding, but HIDING almost never involves showing.
The following table from Cheating and Deception lays out the structure of Whaley and Bell’s theory in more detail:
|THE STRUCTURE OF DECEPTION
(with process defined)
(Hiding the Real)
(Showing the False)
(To Eliminate an Old Pattern or Blend it with a Background pattern.)
(To Recreate an Old Pattern, Imitating It.)
(To Modify an Old Pattern by Matching Another.)
(To Create a New Pattern.)
(To Blur an Old Pattern, Reducing its Certainty.)
(To Give an Additional, Alternative Pattern, Increasing its Certainty.)