![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
why do people work for the CIA?
May. 7th, 2007 10:58 amIn most professions upside is large while downside is limited (similar to a long option).
E.g., a university professor would teach a couple of classes each term, publish a couple of papers each year and live in happy obscurity - as a downside. His upside, however, is world fame and a Nobel.
A computer programmer would code here and there and live in happy obscurity - as a downside. His upside, however, is joining the next pre-IPO Google.
What about a disaster manager, e.g., a CIA operative, FBI agent, or a local cop? His situation is similar to a short option: the downside is being killed in action or blamed for a massive security failure (like 9/11). His upside, however, is either happy obscurity or, worse, being blamed for instituting useless security measures (because people do not see the disaster they prevented: e.g., cockpit access control could have prevented 9/11, but it would have made airlines spend money and inconvenience air crews).
So, why do people go to work for the CIA? (Discounting patriotism, romanticism et al - these are powerful motivators, but are not likely to recruit enough top-notch people).
They are not stupid (at least not all of them are, otherwise the Cold War would not have been won by the West), they would assuredly be successful in just about any other line of work.
The answer, methinks, was given by Bertrand Russell in his book Power and by Henry Kissinger in his famous adage Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac: these careers offer power, both in the simple day-to-day sense (an FBI agent does not have to go through the airport security), and in the sense of being able to influence global events (prevent a major terrorist act).
This view is indirectly supported by Viktor Suvorov in Aquarium where he describes the difference between the images of a Soviet intelligence officer (top-level Nomenklatura) and his Western counterpart (just another government bureaucrat).
E.g., a university professor would teach a couple of classes each term, publish a couple of papers each year and live in happy obscurity - as a downside. His upside, however, is world fame and a Nobel.
A computer programmer would code here and there and live in happy obscurity - as a downside. His upside, however, is joining the next pre-IPO Google.
What about a disaster manager, e.g., a CIA operative, FBI agent, or a local cop? His situation is similar to a short option: the downside is being killed in action or blamed for a massive security failure (like 9/11). His upside, however, is either happy obscurity or, worse, being blamed for instituting useless security measures (because people do not see the disaster they prevented: e.g., cockpit access control could have prevented 9/11, but it would have made airlines spend money and inconvenience air crews).
So, why do people go to work for the CIA? (Discounting patriotism, romanticism et al - these are powerful motivators, but are not likely to recruit enough top-notch people).
They are not stupid (at least not all of them are, otherwise the Cold War would not have been won by the West), they would assuredly be successful in just about any other line of work.
The answer, methinks, was given by Bertrand Russell in his book Power and by Henry Kissinger in his famous adage Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac: these careers offer power, both in the simple day-to-day sense (an FBI agent does not have to go through the airport security), and in the sense of being able to influence global events (prevent a major terrorist act).
This view is indirectly supported by Viktor Suvorov in Aquarium where he describes the difference between the images of a Soviet intelligence officer (top-level Nomenklatura) and his Western counterpart (just another government bureaucrat).
