108
Approved For Release
side to this debate suggests th t
^ short - Cuts.
This re-
adaptive information-processing
y
into that of human
has spread I™•**
sense.
Research-
judgment and decision m0jQhS
? in human cognition, but this
ers have pointed out many
f been highlighted by D.
paper describes only t^ree X,mb0i0Xical Revie_w,
1973,
237-251).
Kahneman and A. Tvershy
factors may rep
“rzz
« ~~^so
cognitive errors
.
I
Tverskv sugglst that people habitually use
X Kahneman and Tver®Ky
.
'
their decisions and judgments
certaiWnitive f
01^
CUt*^J^ftheSe strategies, or heuristics
qmckly^nd effective y.
3 Q leafi to errors.
The
first of
are effect^, but their ^iudemeft bt
availability , where peoples
these heuristics
is terme
+ . irfeSenOT^f^biects or the likelihood
judgments abcnk the rS 3
H hv fthe relative
availability of these
of events may ^influenced ^
t0 the accessibility of items
objects or events Wailabilityjb
S
The second heuristic
is
in perception, mender. ^Zlk^eness or similarity, where an indx-
termed judgment by Xli—:—.vXhilitv that two events are related
e
vidual's judgment of"^l^^^to'wW.nh these events have features
pends very much on
SF
final information-processing
that are similar
to each
,
g
1ll dffment by anchoring^
strategy which can
lea
X
are gaidhTm^
adjustment .
Here, indi
JX
.
which
is then insufficiently ad-
ing with an initial value oJ
information- -this
is one way m
)d=ted
to—*+1:S cvcu m th.
die-
which erroneous
beliefs
OTay
V
confirming information.
/
\
Conclusions
This paper desclbes Uiree J^J^T^rors in everyday
logical research that Hear on the q
on the examination
human judgment andjnferenee
occurrence\ psi in spontaneous
of errors in conclusions abou
as\t form any coher-
settings
.
The ne.eib d.«nbed^~. «* 'JV ^
p»ap,y-
ent theory of humanf error and md
y
d tQ scXe three func-
cholo gists
.
However ,
this PaP
of releyanceX parapsyohology
tions:
(1) to totefate some fin
^ context ^hin psycho-
and present them n a wa\^
at
error
.
(2 )
to infoiw or remlnd
logical research on human
^ ^ wWch false -poslive or
parapsychologists
)f the
- oocurrence Qf psi may be
false-negative conclusions ab
identifying mistaken conclu-
reached f «Wch m(y “*
enhancing the
sions about the operation
P
.
and
(3)
to
stress that
quality of data on the occur*3
p^psychology on mistaken
while there is some emphasis m p
P
Approved For Release 2000/08/15
:
109
conclusions that psi has occurre^
P^
h
^d
identification of
ZZSSg'Zn."S;e—one- the— C
psi.
ANOMALOUS HUMAN-COMPUTER “^fSsTMTES *N
ssrrrssassess™*.
COMPUTERS)
„
m ._t
of psychology , University of Edinburgh,
K - “ro»rgfs,«t.
EdinhSgh EH* MX, Scotland)
.
nin-rify in what manner a genuine
This paper is an attempt to ^
exp]icable by known
anomaly can be distmguis
pvpmolifv the various methods that
manner 'upo^^b^P^^^^^.^^p^^o^^^^e^es^to^^carried
- - - »“"ei" “irn"
and other institutions *
^ of
rapsychological re-
computer mteractxon
As
’with
y
^ ^ researcher mistaking
search there always exis
g
Anomalv
This paper was
a normally explicable Phen0
a“0
confronted by
an' unusual happening
written to help people w
o
^
d to be aware of the pos-
r—g— »,
anomaly.
of co-called anomalies might be
(1)
Human-
The ”a^, ignorance of their own computer
found to be caused by
pled with the human trait of
fSiSfcU^ventl into meaningfui patterns, might expiain
many anomalies.
a
The methods of achieving the simula-
(2)
Software Anomaly.
The
be broken down
tion of a soft^SX^hi^are-based) anomaly can
into the following categories:
a „+ +v,o
tm-p-et Drogram.
The target program
„
«
«* »»«”» “*
extra "feature” that
will become the "anomaly.
IA-RDP96-00792R000701 020005-3
110
111
Approved For Release 2000/08/15
: C IA-RDP96-OG792R0007Q1 020005-3
(b)
Adjusting or amending the target program or process
.
In this scenario the target process
is amended
at
the same time or
very shortly before the "anomaly."
This would of course demand
the knowledge of the specification of the software being used
at the
target
site.
(c)
Breaches
in computer /organizational security both prior
to and simultaneously with anomaly .
These are often a necessary
prerequisite of any of the above software anomalies.
The breach in
security could even be from a remote
site,
via a computer communica-
tion link that has access to the target system
.
The use of inter-
preted languages or online debugging (disassembling)
tools makes
this reasonably easy.
(3)
Hardware Anomaly .
This
section covers any physical
ef-
fect that occurs
to an item of computer machinery
(but not
to the
logic
controlling
it).
These
"effects"
could
often
take
the
form
of either repairing or destroying an item of equipment.
These items
could be anything from
a personal electronic belonging (e.g.
, an
electronic watch)
to a computer's storage device.
(a)
Replacement .
In this scenario an exact duplicate of the
target is prepared and exchanged
for the target item when the op-
portunity arises.
The duplicate has some extra "feature" which
will
be used by the
false, anomalist to simulate the required anomaly.
(b)
Adjustment /destruction- - "live . "
To adjust or amend an
item of equipment
is not as
difficult as
it might appear.
Much com-
puting equipment
is sensitive
to one or many of the following en-
vironmental influences:
weak magnetic
fields, physical force
(e.g.,
bending), exposure
for long periods to strong sunlight,
contact
with sharp objects,
extreme humidity, temperatures outside the
tolerated range,
contact with
static electricity, and any substances
or object making contact with a recording or electrically conductive
surface.
(c)
Breaches in computer /organizational security before or
simultaneously with anomaly .
In contrast
to the previous scenarios
,
simulating hardware anomalies requires the physical presence of the
false anomalist or environmental influence in order
to achieve the
anomaly.
(4)
External to Computer System
.
Such things as
electrical
mains
fluctuations
are a possible example of natural "disasters,"
and
if the fluctuation coincided with some other meaningful event
the users might decide that an anomaly had occurred which had a
correlation with that meaningful event, thus starting
local lore
about this
false correlation.
Methods of Avoiding Computer-Based Fraudulent Anomalies
Examples of new technology that might help
alleviate the
above'
mentioned problems are
(1)
WORMS
(write once read many times)
optical disks .
These
(at present)
are noneditable and are immune to "grubby
thumbs," magnetic
fields, and
static.
They are therefore much
better potential psi-corruption targets than the currently favorite
floppy disk,
especially if the target data on the disk are well en-
crypted and the disk uniquely identified.
(2)
Optical fiber cables .
This makes data transmission line
monitoring or adjustment much more complex.
( 3)
Automated technical advisers for computer-based security .
These can rapidly and thoroughly analyze a large and highly com-
plex system
specification for security weaknesses.
They are only
as good as the level of detail or accuracy in the specification and
the expertise of their user.
(4)
Gypsy verification environments
&
(5) Program analysis
tools
.
Both of these methods could be useful in the analysis of a
piece of code that has been in an "anomaly."
Again, they are sub-
ject to the same weaknesses discussed under the previous heading.
(6)
Cryptographic methods .
These can be highly effective
in preventing access
to information, provided a sufficiently good
encryption method
is selected.
(7)
Shielding .
Simple shielding of vdu screen emission can
eliminate the chance of a computer screen being reconstituted out-
side the system
confines.
Conclusion
This paper has tried to portray the various scenarios that
could be misinterpreted as an "anomalous" human-computer inter-
action (AHCI)
.
It
also tried
to show that there are conceptual pat-
terns that
allow AHCI anomalies to be categorized,
along with their
possible fraudulent explanations.
It
is hoped that armed with such
a method of categorization experimenters may be able better to re-
cord and evaluate the intriguing
field of AHCI.
In such evaluations
it may be more cost effective
to create a means of detecting a fraud-
ulent anomaly rather than to proof a system against every possible
threat.
A highly motivated
false anomalist with large financial and
time resources might be able to create fraudulent anomalies, regard-
less of the tightest precautions.
Experimenters might therefore
find
it helpful to adopt an experimental condition where no one
Approved For Release 2000/08/15
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000701 020005-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/15
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000701 020005-3
112
Papers
star "makes or breaks" the results.
By using large "anonymous"
source groups the incentive for any one individual to create
false
anomalies might be greatly reduced.
STATISTICAL ISSUES AND METHODS*
WHEN WILL WE BEGIN TO REDUCE ALPHA AND BETA ERRORS
IN STATISTICAL PSI EXPERIMENTS?
Ulrich Timm
(Institut fur Grenzgebiete der Psychologie und
Psychohygiene, Eichhalde
12,
7800 Freiburg i.Br.
, West
Germany)
/>
In many psi experiments some
statistical selection errors are
made,
after whose correction the initial /statistical significance dis-
appears.
These are Type\l errors, more simply called alpha errors.
That does not necessarily mean
, however,
that in these experiments
real psi effects do not
exisft,
since the usual methods,
if utilized
correctly,
are often so ineffective- -with regard to the rareness,
instability, and inconsistencAof psi effects- -that they can only
seldom lead to
statistical significance.
This inefficiency of statisti-
cal methods creates Type
II errors, or beta errors.
Therefore,
our objective should not only be\/he reduction of alpha errors and
the related decrease of spurious Significances but
also the reduction
of beta errors and the related increase of real significance.
First
I
give an overview /if tho\c alpha errors that
I
call
statistical selection errors
.
These shoW,
simply stated, the follow-
ing three qualities
(Timm, ZB!,
1983,
19ifi-229):
(1)
From
a set of statistical results, a single result
is
se-
lected and evaluated by some significance test.
(2)
The selection
is not performed randomly but according
to a criterion
fthat
is related
to the level of the single
result in that/it directly or indirectly favors positive
results
.
I
(3)
Despite
this
i success-dependent selection, the significance
test
is carried out and interpreted in the usual manner
without any correction.
*C haired by Martin U.
Johnson.
Approved For Release 2000/08/15
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000701 020005-3