The World Is More Uncertain Than You Think: Assessing and Combating Overconfidence Among 2,000 National Security Officials

Abstract: This article analyzes more than 60,000 assessments of uncertainty made by national security officials from more than forty NATO allies and partners. The findings show that national security officials are overwhelmingly overconfident and that their judgments are especially prone to false positives. Despite having strong incentives to make accurate assessments of uncertainty, national security officials share biases that are widespread among the general public. These flaws also appear to be tractable—just two minutes of training significantly improved performance. Altogether, these findings demonstrate how national security bureaucracies can leverage insights from the decision sciences to improve cognitive performance at large scales.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Texas National Security Review
Published
2025-08-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1353/tns.00011
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Intelligence, Security, War Strategy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
17.04
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The World Is More Uncertain Than You Think: Assessing and Combating Overconfidence Among 2,000 National Security Officials

Jeffrey Friedman
2 citations
Texas National Security Review
Intelligence, Security, War Strategy
17.04
article

The World Is More Uncertain Than You Think: Assessing and Combating Overconfidence Among 2,000 National Security Officials

Jeffrey Friedman
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract: This article analyzes more than 60,000 assessments of uncertainty made by national security officials from more than forty NATO allies and partners. The findings show that national security officials are overwhelmingly overconfident and that their judgments are especially prone to false positives. Despite having strong incentives to make accurate assessments of uncertainty, national security officials share biases that are widespread among the general public. These flaws also appear to be tractable—just two minutes of training significantly improved performance. Altogether, these findings demonstrate how national security bureaucracies can leverage insights from the decision sciences to improve cognitive performance at large scales.

Texas National Security ReviewVol. 8(4)
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Intelligence, Security, War Strategy
17.04
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.