CIA-RDP96-00792R000701020005-3

108
Approved For Release 2000/08/15 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000707020005-3
109
Proposed information-processing influences. The alternative
side to this debate suggests that errors are caused by generally
adaptive information-processing styles and short-cuts. This re-
search has spread from the attributional field into that of human
judgment and decision making in the more general sense. Research-
ers have pointed out many weaknesses in human cognition, but this
paper describes only three which have been highlighted by D.
Kahneman and A. Tversky (Psychological Review, 1973, 237-251).
This is because these three information-processing factors may rep-
resent the more general processes that underlie many more specific
cognitive errors.
Kahneman and Tversky suggest that people habitually use
certain cognitive short-cuts to make their decisions and judgments
quickly and effectively. Generally these strategies, or heuristics,
are effective, but their use may also lead to errors. The first of
these heuristics is termed judgment by availability, where people's
judgments about the relative frequency of objects or the likelihood
of events may be influenced by the relative availability of these
objects or events, availability referring to the accessibility of items
in perception, memory, or imagination. The second heuristic is
termed judgment by representativeness or similarity, where an indi-
vidual's judgment of the probability that two events are related de-
pends very much on the degree to which these events have features
that are similar to each other. The final information-processing
strategy which can lead to errors is judgment by anchoring and
adjustment. Here, individua's are said to make judgments by start-
ing with an initial value or position which is then insufficiently ad-
justed to account for new incoming information -- this is one way in
which erroneous beliefs may be maintained even in the face of dis-
confirming information.
Conclusions
This paper describes three areas of cognitive social psycho-
logical research that bear on the question of errors in everyday
human judgment and inference and consequently on the examination
of errors in conclusions about the occurrence of psi in spontaneous
settings. The research described does not as yet form any coher-
ent theory of human error and indeed, may not be new to parapsy-
chologists. However, this paper is intended to serve three func-
tions: (1) to integrate some findings of relevance to parapsychology
and present them in a way that shows their context within psycho-
logical research on human judgmental error; (2) to inform or remind
parapsychologists of the various ways in which false-positive or
false-negative conclusions about the occurrence of psi may be
reached, which may help in eventually identifying mistaken conclu-
sions about the operation of psi and consequently enhancing the
quality of data on the occurrence of psi; and (3) to stress that
while there is some emphasis in parapsychology on mistaken
conclusions that psi has occurred, psychological research on human
error logically cuts both ways, and can aid in the identification of
false-positive and false-negative conclusions about the occurrence of
psi.
ANOMALOUS HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION (AHCI):
TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT CONSTITUTES AN
ANOMALY (OR, HOW TO MAKE FRIENDS AND INFLUENCE
COMPUTERS)
K. Morgan (Dept. of Psychology, University of Edinburgh,
7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, Scotland)
This paper is an attempt to clarify in what manner a genuine
anomaly can be distinguished from an incident explicable by known
physical means. It also tries to exemplify the various methods that
could be used to simulate an anomalous human-computer interaction
(AHCI). This paper does not dwell in any more than a superficial
manner upon the psychology involved in manipulating observers
which would allow the described physical strategies to be carried
out. That would demand a paper in its own right.
Part of the research being carried out at the Koestler Chair
and other institutions is the investigation of anomalous human-
computer interaction. As with any area of parapsychological re-
search there always exists the danger of the researcher mistaking
a normally explicable phenomenon as an anomaly. This paper was
written to help people who are confronted by an unusual happening
on a computer to evaluate the situation and to be aware of the pos-
sibility of there being normal methods of simulating almost any
anomaly.
The various categories into which both simulated and genuine
anomalies could fall can be separated into the following:
(1)
Human.
The majority of so-called anomalies might be
found to be caused by the users' ignorance of their own computer
system or aspects of it. This, coupled with the human trait of
forcing unconnected events into meaningful patterns, might explain
many anomalies.
(2) Software Anomaly. The methods of achieving the simula-
tion of a software (nonhardware-based) anomaly can be broken down
into the following categories:
(a) Replacement of the target program. The target program
or process is exchanged for an amended version that contains the
extra "feature" that will become the "anomaly."
Approved For Release 2000/08/15 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000701020005-3
.

110
Approved For Release 2000/08/15 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000701020005-3
111
(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-RDP96-00792R000701020005-3
.
..
. .

112
Approved For Release 2000/08/15 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000701020005-3
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 für 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 I errors, more simply called alpha errors.
That does not necessarily mean, however, that in these experiments
real psi effects do not exist, since the usual methods, if utilized
correctly, are often so ineffective -- with regard to the rareness,
instability, and inconsistency of 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 the 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 of those alpha errors that I call
statistical selection errors.
These show, simply stated, the follow-
ing three qualities (Timm, ZP, 1983, 195-229) :
(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 that is related to the level of the single
result in that it directly or indirectly favors positive
results.
(3)
Despite this success-dependent selection, the significance
test is carried out and interpreted in the usual manner
without any correction.
*Chaired by Martin U. Johnson.
Approved For Release 2000/08/15 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000701020005-3
1
-
-
.