Competitive Intelligence

Tactical, Operational & Strategic Analysis of Markets, Competitors & Industries

A diversion -- your favourite CI and strategy quotes

A diversion to start the work week -- what are your favourite CI/strategy quotes?

"Skate to where the puck's going, not where it's been."
Walter Gretzky (Wayne's father)

"Fools rush in..."
Alexander Pope

"Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated."
Sun Tzu

...?

Views: 2943

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Dear Arthur,


"James Bond is not the real world"

I know, I know, Gunpowder made all men equal.

Lol

But Daniel Craig truly has a special-ops operator's body:

"Train Hard, Fight Easy"
Dear Arthur:

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” - Charles Darwin
I do not believe Charles Darwin actually said this. There are several versions you can find on the Internet - all that say he said or wrote this. However if you search all his works (available in various online connections) you won't find this (or at least i didn't). I'd love to know who actually said it - and where (especially if it was Darwin). I've sometimes used this quote as a lesson in CI i.e. not to believe what everybody says without evidence. Many people make assumptions that then become the received wisdom. If the assumption is wrong then all decisions made based on the assumption will be wrong - and the first organisation to expose this and act on the real situation will gain a competitive advantage.
Yes Arthur,

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” - Charles Darwin

CMS ENDORSES THE QUOTE:

CMS:The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also known as CMS or Bonn Convention) aims to conserve terrestrial, marine and avian migratory species throughout their range. It is an intergovernmental treaty, concluded under the aegis of the United Nations Environment Programme, concerned with the conservation of wildlife and habitats on a global scale. Since the Convention's entry into force, its membership has grown steadily to include 110 (as of 1 October 2008) Parties from Africa, Central and South America, Asia, Europe and Oceania

FOR - Those who give credit to Charles Darwin for the Quote:
http://www.cms.int/news/PRESS/nwPR2009/02_feb_09/nw1202_Darwin.htm

CMS Executive Secretary, Robert Hepworth, hopes that the bicentenary celebrations will encourage scientists throughout the world to continue developing the scientific base on which CMS and conservation programmes everywhere are built. He said “Darwin is a role model for all those who discover and disseminate new truths from science, and more importantly sets an example for good behaviour in research. A true son of Shrewsbury, he is often misquoted or misunderstood. Yet his core discoveries have been largely vindicated by modern research, particularly through genetic analysis. My favourite quote from Darwin also seems particularly opposite in the present dilemmas faced by the human species: It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”



AGAINST: Those who discredit the Quote:

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/157/1/

How does it really matter Arthur. OSINT is really about about Psy-Ops.
We never derive Competitive Advantage from OSINT.

Competitive Intelligence really means "Intelligence which is Competitive"
To expect OSINT to give one cutting edge Intelligence is actually asking too much.

Actually Arthur what cutting edge Intelligence is about, is:

1. Verified Facts
2. Reasonable Secure Facts
3. Probability
4. Rumours
5. Human Intelligence - Name of the Game
Arthur "Read between the lines":

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Charles-Darwin-Theory-Evolution.htm

In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment. (Charles Darwin)

http://brembs.net/gould.html

Natural selection is an immensely powerful yet beautifully simple theory that has held up remarkably well, under intense and unrelenting scrutiny and testing, for 135 years. In essence, natural selection locates the mechanism of evolutionary change in a "struggle" among organisms for reproductive success, leading to improved fit of populations to changing environments. ( Struggle is often a metaphorical description and need not be viewed as overt combat, guns blazing. Tactics for reproductive success include a variety of non-martial activities such as earlier and more frequent mating or better cooperation with partners in raising offspring.) Natural selection is therefore a principle of local adaptation, not of general advance or progress.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_48

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.

A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_01

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:
• mutation
• migration
• genetic drift
• natural selection
http://springerlink.com/content/934652024q2677m1/fulltext.html
Vivek

Getting a quote right or wrong may seem trivial but it's part of a mindset. Attributing a statement to Charles Darwin when he never said it shows a careless mindset that doesn't check or verify gathered intelligence and then acts on the unverified intelligence. That is not CI - that's stupidity.

Every piece of information - irrespective of whether it's HUMINT or OSINT or whatever - should
a) have a source with some estimate of the source credibility
b) be evaluated as to its likely veracity

Information where the source is dubious should be questioned. Information where the veracity of the information is questionable should be treated with care.

A perfect example of this is where the UK supported the invasion of Iraq based on a single HUMINT source seemingly confirming a rumour. The source had previously been reliable but turned out to have a vested interest, and so provided false information. In hindsight the evidence from OSINT turned out to be more accurate.

The point about the Darwin quote is that it is a typical rumour that is NOT verifiable, and with a bit of work can be shown to be almost certainly false. However because most people don't bother to check (i.e. are careless), it goes round and round and becomes viewed as fact.

My reasons for doubting the quote are nothing to do with the DarwinProject but on my own research into the origins of the quote. I started by believing it was a valid quote as it sounded feasible so i wanted to see the context and from which work it came from. You can search ALL Darwin's published writings on the web - and doing this i couldn't find the quote. I then contacted Nigel Rees who is an expert on quotation origins with a network of others who know things like this. They were also unsure, but came to the conclusion that it was NOT said by Darwin (but couldn't find who did first say it). (i.e. i used a mix of OSINT and HUMINT).

Another CI skill is to evaluate sources. You quote two that seem professional: CMS and the Darwin Project. However of the two, the CMS one is dubious. The quote comes from a lecture / presentation and is described as "my favorite quote". Such lectures are unlikely to do the research into whether the quote is true or not. In contrast, the Darwin Project is actually studying Darwin's works and so is likely to be more reliable.

This is why this attributing this quote is important. It can be used as a mini-case study on how to do CI and how NOT to do CI (i.e. believing rumours without checking the facts; failure to weigh up sources and evaluate them vs. looking at the reasons to why the information was made available, etc.)

As for OSINT not ever giving competitive advantage - that's also false, and dangerous. The British achieved major successes against the Germans in WW2 through OSINT. There have been numerous other examples where OSINT is crucial. (Unless you are saying things like Patent research is worthless). You need both OSINT and HUMINT. One without the other is likely to lead to competitive failure as you will not have the complete picture.

BTW - there are many other quotes that are wrongly attributed to individuals that go round on the Internet. (Another is "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics". This is sometimes attributed to Mark Twain - false; or to Benjamin Disraeli - not verifiable but possible. You can see how complex this is at http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/lies.htm)
Arthur dear,

You did not read my second post.

The issue is not whether he said the quote:

We have Dissonance here. If you attempt to understand Anthropology and NATURAL SELECTION and INTERPRET then:

Please Read:

Arthur "Read between the lines":

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Charles-Darwin-Theory-Evolution.htm

In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment. (Charles Darwin)

http://brembs.net/gould.html

Natural selection is an immensely powerful yet beautifully simple theory that has held up remarkably well, under intense and unrelenting scrutiny and testing, for 135 years. In essence, natural selection locates the mechanism of evolutionary change in a "struggle" among organisms for reproductive success, leading to improved fit of populations to changing environments. ( Struggle is often a metaphorical description and need not be viewed as overt combat, guns blazing. Tactics for reproductive success include a variety of non-martial activities such as earlier and more frequent mating or better cooperation with partners in raising offspring.) Natural selection is therefore a principle of local adaptation, not of general advance or progress.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_48

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.

A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_01

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:
• mutation
• migration
• genetic drift
• natural selection
http://springerlink.com/content/934652024q2677m1/fulltext.htmlbabaj...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Arthur,

I do not think you have Security clearance to know about Iraq, when you make a statement:

"A perfect example of this is where the UK supported the invasion of Iraq based on a single HUMINT source seemingly confirming a rumour. The source had previously been reliable but turned out to have a vested interest, and so provided false information. In hindsight the evidence from OSINT turned out to be more accurate".

Arthur, my friend, if you attempt to see reality as it was:

THERE IS NO PEACE IN MIDDLE EAST WITHOUT EGYPT
AND THERE IS NO WAR WITHOUT IRAQ

Ask your friends in MI6 and MI5 what Iraq is really about. Forget OSINT fed to the Media
Hi Arthur, I liked that quote by Issur Harel.

Something I picked up recently:

"Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought" - Albert Szent-Gyorgyi

If we just replace "Research" with CI, it would make a darn good summation of what we do!!

Nimalan
Dear all

“Do not reveal what you have thought upon doing, but by wise council keep it secret being determined to carry it into execution.”
-Kautilya (350 BC)
From Mark Twain ... "We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it — and stop there;
lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit on a hot stove lid again — and that is well;
but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore"

From J.R.R. Tolkien ... "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him"
"Competitive Intelligence is PERCEPTION Driven" :

We all know that an optimistic would see half full glass of water,
while a pessimist would see a half empty one. What would people of
different professions and walks of life say?

A Banker would say that the glass has just under 50% of its net worth
in liquid assets.

The Government would say that the glass is fuller than if the
opposition party were in power.

The Opposition party would say that it is irrelevant because the
present administration has changed the way such volume statistics are
collected.

The Economist would say that, in real terms, the glass is 25% fuller
than at the same time last year.

The Philosopher would say that, if the glass was in the forest and no
one was there to see it, would it be half anything?

The Psychiatrist would ask, "What did your mother say about the glass?"

The Physicist would say that the volume of this cylinder is divided
into two equal parts; one a colorless, odorless liquid, the other a
colorless, odorless gas. Thus the cylinder is neither full nor empty.
Rather, each half of the cylinder is full, one with a gas, one with a
liquid.

The Seasoned Drinker would say that the glass doesn't have enough (or
too much) ice in it.
Heard a funny one the other day that I hadn't heard before. For somebody who is making a mountain out of a molehill, or obsessing on some trivial battle:

"Is this really the hill you want to die on??"

Not exactly a quote, but certainly something I can see using with clients and colleagues!

Cheers.. Rob

RSS

Free Intel Collab Webinars

You might be interested in the next few IntelCollab webinars:

RECONVERGE Network Calendar of Events

© 2019   Created by Arik Johnson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service