Help with terminology

[Affentitten]

I'm looking for the technical phrase for when you construct a 'reality' about a target based upon what you *expect* to see, thus leading to an erroneous perception. So like the the A-10 pilot is looking for Iraqi APCs and shoots up some British ones, ignoring all evidence as to their real identity.

Could also be appropriate in falsely ID-ing terrorist suspects and threats.

Is their a psych-term for this?

[JonS]

'projection' ?

'target fixation' ? (that's not quite right though)

seeing what you want to see. Hmm. What is that. Sorry, I'm blank.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Expectation bias?

[Michael Emrys]

Is their a psych-term for this?

I strongly suspect there is, but either I haven't encountered it or cannot recall it at the moment. I suggest you try searching the literature that has emerged in the last 30-40 years on the subject of eye witness false identification. It is the psychologists studying this phenomenon who are most likely to have coined the term.

Michael

[Stalins Organ]

confirmation bias?

Here's an article on seeing what you expect to see which probnably jsut tells you what you already know

Wiki has a list of cognitive biases that might be more useful

[Affentitten]

Yes confirmation bias sounds exactly like what I was after, thanks.

I'm writing a lecture on COIN and Counter-terrorism and mentioning some of the arguments for and against torture.

[Stalins Organ]

this one may also be relevant - Selective Perception

[Magpie_Oz]

I think this might be the one? From the USS Vincennes shoot down of the Iraq airliner.

"When questioned in a 2000 BBC documentary, the U.S. government stated in a written answer that they believed the incident may have been caused by a simultaneous psychological condition amongst the 18 bridge crew of the Vincennes called 'scenario fulfillment', which is said to occur when persons are under pressure. In such a situation, the men will carry out a training scenario, believing it to be reality while ignoring sensory information that contradicts the scenario. In the case of this incident, the scenario was an attack by a lone military aircraft.

It extends from military personnel being trained to shot stuff rather than to NOT shoot stuff. The A10 pilot shoots the taxi because his training focuses mainly on blowing up a target rather than an exhaustive process to identify the target in the first place.

I can give you HEAPS of reasons against torture, but I'm sure you already know them anyway.

[hoolaman]

That's what the example I was thinking of too. It is quite an astonishing mistake, I think things like this are compounded by an aggressive culture up and down the chain of command.

The A10 pilot shoots the taxi because his training focuses mainly on blowing up a target rather than an exhaustive process to identify the target in the first place.

Yes, and sometimes guys that want to blow **** up will phrase their reports to higher-ups in a way that gets them permission. I've heard it with pilots in Iraq and apparently captain Rogers of the Vincennes was that way inclined too. They initially ID a threat and don't really want to wait to see if they are right in case they miss the chance to kill it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

If it's the incident I'm thinking of, the A-10 pilot asked if there were friendlies operating in the area and was told there were none.

[Magpie_Oz]

Well what ever the particular circumstances I know from my own experience that very few training scenarios involve procedures where you are required to determine the "status" of a target.

I have seen the police ranges where the exposed targets include pictures of civilians or unarmed "perps" the idea being to sort the wheat from the chaff so to speak.

Perhaps with the focus in more recent times on Urban Ops there is greater target differentiation training being done but it certainly wasn't the case in my day, particularly at the level of higher weapons systems, air support, artillery, SFMG etc all training more or less started with "Target in front" and went from there.

Even IFF wasn't stressed all that much.

[JonS]

Yep, electronic ranges often have scenarios where target discrimination is expected ... although wiping out the pregnant mothers is often greeted with guffaws. And that's only at section level. As you say, higher level systems scenarios generally start with 'at your target in front, go on!'

[Affentitten]

If it's the incident I'm thinking of, the A-10 pilot asked if there were friendlies operating in the area and was told there were none.

He was talking to the FAC about some targets near where some friendly arty was landing. Then he kept being badgered by his wingman about some other vehicles elsewhere....a completely different gridref on a different side of a canal. After some other exchanges of info about the initial target he asked the FAC to confirm if there were any friendlies operating "there". The pilot meant the 'other area' but the FAC (having not been privvy to the leader-wingman chat) assumed he was still talking about the initial target and said there were certainly no friendlies THERE. Then the A-10s roll in on the Brits in the other grid.

The scenario fullfilment there was with the wingman. He straight away noticed the orange recognition panels on the friendlies but somehow ignored the possibility they could be friendly. They became "some sort of orange rockets".

[YankeeDog]

In hunting culture, this phenomenon is referred to as "buck fever". A hunter, desperately hoping to spot a majestic stag that he can bring down, tie to his hood and so become the envy of his hunting buddies, misinterprets a doe (not legal to shoot without a special permit), the branch of a tree, or, occasionally and tragically, a hiker out for a stroll in the woods as a male deer and looses off a shot.

In Northern New England where I grew up, the term buck fever is used more generally to refer to any situation where someone sees something as other that what it actually is, due to a desire for it to be something else.

[Michael Emrys]

Thanks for reminding me of that term, YD. Given how long it has been around and its wide spread general application, I'd suggest that it is the term of art for the phenomenon of interest, even allowing that it is somewhat colloquial.

Michael

[Affentitten]

In Northern New England where I grew up, the term buck fever is used more generally to refer to any situation where someone sees something as other that what it actually is, due to a desire for it to be something else.

Also known as beer goggles!

[vincere]

Heuristics plays a role here and from this wiki you can see some of the terms above comfirmed and some pointers to some key figures in psychology heuristics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic

As for quoting or referecing here's a pdf article that may be what your looking for:

Heuritsics and biases in Military Decision Making (Major Blair S. Williams):

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20101031_art008.pdf

Good luck with your project.