Technosocial predictive analytics for security informatics

Challenges to the security, health, and sustainable growth of our society keep escalating asymmetrically due to the growing pace of globalization and global change. The increasing velocity of information sharing, social networking, economic forces, and environmental change has resulted in a rapid increase in the number and frequency of “game-changing moments” that a community can face. Social movements that once took a decade to build now take a year; shifts in public opinion that once took a year to take root now take a couple of months. More and more frequently, these critical moments occur too suddenly for the affected communities to succeed in countering the consequent adversities or seizing the emerging opportunities. Now more than ever, we need anticipatory reasoning technologies to forecast and manage change in order to secure and improve our way of life and the environment we inhabit. The ability to estimate the occurrence of future events using expertise, observation and intuition is critical to the human decision-making process. From a biophysical perspective, there is strong evidence that the neocortex provides a basic framework for memory and prediction in which human intelligence emerges as a process of pattern storage, recognition and projection rooted in our experience of the world and driven by perception and creativity [1]. There is increasing consensus among cognitive psychologists that human decision making can be seen as a situation-action matching process which is context-bound and driven by experiential knowledge and intuition [2-4]. Despite the natural disposition of humans towards prediction, our ability to forecast, analyze and respond to plausible futures remains one of the greatest intelligence challenges. There are well known limitations on human reasoning due to cognitive and cultural biases. Kahneman’s and Tversky’s groundbreaking work

[1]  Pak Chung Wong,et al.  Technosocial predictive analytics in support of naturalistic decision making , 2009 .

[2]  I. Janis Victims Of Groupthink , 1972 .

[3]  G. Gigerenzer Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious , 2007 .

[4]  M. Douglas,et al.  Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers , 1983 .

[5]  I. Janis Victims of Groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. By Irving L. Janis. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972. viii + 276 pp. Map, illustrations, chart, notes, sources, bibliography, and index. Cloth, $7.95; paper $4.50.) , 1973 .

[6]  Paul D. Whitney,et al.  Violent frames in action , 2011 .

[7]  D. Kahan Fixing the communications failure , 2010, Nature.

[8]  R. Chaturvedi,et al.  UNDERSTANDING INSURGENCY BY USING AGENT-BASED COMPUTATIONAL EXPERIMENTATION: CASE STUDY OF INDONESIA , 2005 .

[9]  Paul Whitney,et al.  Technosocial Modeling of IED Threat Scenarios and Attack , 2009, AAAI Spring Symposium: Technosocial Predictive Analytics.

[10]  E. Salas,et al.  Taking stock of naturalistic decision making , 2001 .

[11]  A. Tversky,et al.  Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness , 1972 .

[12]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[13]  Elizabeth C. Hirschman,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[14]  J. Hawkins,et al.  On Intelligence , 2004 .

[15]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[16]  Elizabeth L. Malone,et al.  Resilience, Climate Change, and Security: Modeling the Connections , 2009, AAAI Spring Symposium: Technosocial Predictive Analytics.

[17]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Proceedings of the 9th Bi-annual international conference on Naturalistic Decision Making , 2009 .

[18]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn’t, and Why? An Experimental Study of the Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition , 2010, Law and human behavior.

[19]  Stephen D. Unwin,et al.  Consumer Choice and Dempster-Shafer Models of Threat Prioritization for Emerging Dual-Use Technologies: Their Application to Synthetic Biology , 2009 .

[20]  Wenji Mao,et al.  Agent-Based Social Simulation and Modeling in Social Computing , 2008, ISI Workshops.

[21]  R. Cronje Gladwell M. Blink: the power of thinking without thinking. Boston: Little, Brown, 2005. , 2005 .

[22]  A. Tversky,et al.  On the psychology of prediction , 1973 .

[23]  Lyndsey Franklin,et al.  Serious Gaming for Predictive Analytics , 2009, AAAI Spring Symposium: Technosocial Predictive Analytics.

[24]  Andrew J. Cowell,et al.  Knowledge Encapsulation Framework for Collaborative Social Modeling , 2009, AAAI Spring Symposium: Technosocial Predictive Analytics.

[25]  M. Kuit,et al.  The INFRASTRATEGO game: An evaluation of strategic behavior and regulatory regimes in a liberalizing electricity market , 2005 .

[26]  Nigel Gilbert,et al.  Agent-based social simulation: dealing with complexity , 2005 .

[27]  Antonio Sanfilippo,et al.  Proactive Intelligence for Nuclear Nonproliferation , 2008 .

[28]  T. Sanquist,et al.  Lifestyle factors in U.S. residential electricity consumption , 2012 .

[29]  Geraldine Abrami,et al.  Variable time scales, agent-based models, and role-playing games: The PIEPLUE river basin management game , 2007 .

[30]  R. M. Alexander,et al.  Sources of Power , 1982 .

[31]  G. Nigel Gilbert,et al.  Simulation for the social scientist , 1999 .

[32]  Antonio Sanfilippo,et al.  Bridging the Gap between Human Judgment and Automated Reasoning in Predictive Analytics , 2010 .

[33]  Christian Posse,et al.  Content Analysis for Proactive Intelligence: Marshaling Frame Evidence , 2007, AAAI.

[34]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[35]  E. Elliott Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers , 1983 .