Slashdot Mirror
US Spies Use Custom Video Games for Training
Wired reports that the US Defense Intelligence Agency has just acquired three PC-based video games which they will use to train the next wave of analysts. The games are short, but they have branching story lines that change depending on how a trainee reacts to various problems. Quoting:
"'It is clear that our new workforce is very comfortable with this approach,' says Bruce Bennett, chief of the analysis-training branch at the DIA's Joint Military Intelligence Training Center. Wired.com had an opportunity to play all three games, Rapid Onset, Vital Passage and Sudden Thrust. The titles may conjure images of blitzkrieg, but the games themselves are actually a surprisingly clever and occasionally surreal blend of education, humor and intellectual challenge, aimed at teaching the player how to think."
It gets confusing because they all pretend to be medics.
>Rapid Onset, Vital Passage and Sudden Thrust. The titles may conjure images of blitzkrieg,
>
Sounds more like pr0n.
Seriously, video games are a simulation environment. Makes sense to use them as training tools. This is news, why?
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum! (*)
* I think I think, therefore I think I am!
But seriously, I'm curious as to what part of these games is aimed at improving cognitive skills versus indoctrination? i.e. the difference between "how to THINK" versus "HOW to think."
The way we learn has changed; probably irrevocably. We are now in a post-literary world. We increasingly think more visually and spatially, and less sequentially (thus the reduction of news to 30-second bites, but in a multitude of them). We learn by seeing and doing, and not by reading and hearing. It stands to reason that our teaching methods will have to change, as well.
What would it take to get some real branching storylines in games for us ordinary mortals?
That's always been one of my major gripes with most games that have a story: none of your decisions can affect it aside from "Whoops! You failed! Now the world ends!"
...and if someone knows of some such games that do exist, I'd appreciate knowing about them, especially if they're not PC-only ;-)
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
I don't think the way we learn has changed, just the technology now makes it possible to do more visual and spatial instruction.
When all you have is a chalkboard, all you can do is a chalk talk. Now that tools are there for rapid content creation, things should change slowly.
The US was lauded years back for great hands-on engineering labs. Now that you can do virtual labs, maybe this will take a hit? As someone who has taught with both, I can tell you anecdotally that hands-on real-world wins by far...
And I thought spatial reasoning was valued as a higher level of thought? Or is that different from learning spatially?
Sadly engineering and science profs are rarely given formal instruction on educational methods. One thing that I did pick up in my limited instruction was that people learn visually and sequentially, so you need to cater to both (read+equation AND graphs+figures). Usually the visual learners get left out, so now they have a better chance in some cases...
You wake up and the room is dark. _
I doubt that independent studies would confirm your hypothesis regarding changing styles of learning. I've not seen or heard of any accepted study which demonstrated any fundamental shift other than a decline in literacy. I would welcome any valid input in that regard.
Educators have taken up the mantra that we must change our assessments to meet new types of learning. However valid or invalid that arguement, "old" or "standard" types of learning appear to be declining.
Invenio via vel creo
...what are the eight principles/questions of intelligence analysis, as mentioned in the article?
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
For what part of human history have we ever learned by reading? Most people couldn't read for most of human history. It has always been much easier to learn something by doing it, rather than just reading a book about it. Don't get me wrong. Reading is important, and is useful for figuring certain things out. It's really good for passing on ideas and information. However, it is not the best way to learn how to do anything. Do you learn how to program by reading about it, or by doing it? Do you learn how to draw a picture by reading about it? Do you learn how to drive by reading about it? If I want to know, for instance, how to change the padding using CSS, I can read about it. If I don't actually go and do it, there's a much smaller chance that I will remember it when I need to do it again. If I go ahead and actually implement it, and type it out, I am much better able to retain the information.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
These video games ara not for spies, they are for intelligence analysts - NOT the same thing. I am an all-source military intelligence analyst and instructor by trade and I do not do any spying. Spies are collectors; they do not need training in critical thinking, analysis of competing hypotheses, logical fallacies, biases, ad infinitum. Anyone at the DIA who calls himself a spy has watched too many Bond movies and/or is just trying to impress chicks. And the authors of this article should have known better. This is why we get new analysts who are disappointed they're not going to be James Bond. Hell, they're not even going to be Jack Ryan.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
...our next national intelligence estimate will state that the #1 threat to the USA is a grue.
-Styopa
Of course video games are used to teach us how to think. I can attribute much of my college dating career "knowledge" to what I learned from the Leisure Suit Larry games, or atleat LSL 1-3. Who says you can't learn anyhting from video games. Come to think of it, my college dating career was rather abreviated.