Hi Bill,

Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
I am partially joking, but I did sort of admire one of aspect of the USSR system, and that was their screening process for aptitude (perhaps not genetic screening, I don't think we had the technology or knowledge at the time) screening for their athletes and some of their academics. They produced some of the world’s best athletes.
Believe me, I' not a genetic determinist by any means . The comments about a talent for mathematics and music going together is, however, quite well documented in the genetics literature and has been for about 40-50 years. You're quite right that we don't have the technology to do the screening and, to be perfectly honest, even if we did I would be against using it. A "talent", even if it is genetically based, is just a predisposition and doesn't replace actual skill, although it may make it easier for someone to acquire the appropriate skills.

Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
There is a parallel to what you are suggesting, although not a palatable one in the free world, and that is picking the best guy/gal for the job based on their aptitude whether they want to do it or not. If you could coach us on how to identify these people we could use a mentoring approach to persuade them to move into a career field more suited to their skills. However, I wouldn't confuse the gift of gab with a good human intelligence operator. The more important skill is the ability to listen without prejudice, and skillfully get the other guy to talk using empathy and other techniques. I noticed sometimes our gifted talkers are not the best listeners. They are also the ones most likely to give up our secrets inadvertently.
I agree with you about the listening component. The thing about people who can talk to anyone is that it's usually pretty obvious to a skilled listener whether or not they are talking to hear themselves talk or whether they are actually listening and engaging the other person. The other type to look for is who do people go to with their problems?

I suspect that both types of people could be identified back in basic training. If so, it might be worthwhile to consider creating something like a para-HUMINT training course. In fact, as I write this, I believe that a course already exists, or at least the syllabus for such a course, done by Phil Agre in the mid-1990's. If I remember correctly, and it's been years since I talked with Phil, he created a "How to do Ethnography" course and ran it very successfully. Since it was one class a week, I suspect that the entire thing could be reduced fairly easily to a 3 week course.

NB: This would give you trained HUMINT people, but it would give you people who have some training in participant observation techniques and analytics that could as as para-HUMINT people. If they like it, then I'm sure they would also like the 30k signing bonus currently being offered .

Marc

ps. to Tom and Stan: $30,000! And you were willing to acept a mere $2,000 to get me in boots?!? Let's just say that the price of frozen Canadians has jumped radically!