In part one of getting inside the head of a spy, I listed the four characteristics agencies look for in a prospective spy and talked about how a spy needs to learn how to use these characteristics. I ended that post with a discussion of how leading a double life can mess with not only the spy’s head but also mess with interpersonal relationships.

This time, let’s discuss training the mind of a spy.

The simple statement is that spies are mentally conditioned to perform how they’re expected to perform. This goes beyond traditional classroom training methods, though that is part of it. There’s weapons training, of course, as well as defensive driving, how to conduct personal security operations, how to recruit then run or manage an asset in the field, and more. That’s the theoretical aspect.

The practical aspect of training a spy involves simulated exposure to different types of situations. These exercises, which are a closely guarded secret for many agencies, enhance a spy’s resilience and fortitude when they’re under pressure. The key to this is being hyper-focused, that is, have unwavering concentration during an operation, ignore distractions, and know how to target critical information. That takes practice, practice, practice.

A spy often becomes their own best profiler, which has a heavy emphasis in their training. Spies learn to first observe human behavior patterns, interpret what they mean, and use that information to tailor an approach to a potential asset—but also to recognize from behavior when an operation has gone south and it’s time to beat feet.

Almost everything a spy does is high stress, and training emphasizes resilience to that stress. Training exercises provide the stress but also teach techniques to deal with the aftermath. A key part of resilience training is learning how to keep your composure while being interrogated. Note I didn’t say resist torture or fight torture because those are fiction tropes. A spy can “resist” torture only by sticking to their cover story without faltering. Before a spy ever goes out into the world under their cover identity, they’ve practiced responding to interrogation.

Through this intensive training, a spy’s normal cognitive skills are increased and their fortitude is heightened.

Because in this digital age intel comes in at near light speed, information overload is often a problem for a spy in the field. This is why intelligence agencies came to rely on highly trained analysts to review and interpret this overwhelming amount of information. So, another aspect of training is learning how to interact with analysts who may be as knowledgeable as the spy but who don’t have operational training.

AI is also rearing its ubiquitous head in espionage, which has an effect on the operative. Not only can AI process and analyze data far faster than a human being, it can spot patterns a human might miss. However, AI has not yet reached the stage where it can react like a human. A human analyst or operative sometimes relies on hunches, born of experience and intuition, and machine algorithms are not there yet. However, what AI can do is spot patterns in a person’s movements and activities that may flag that person as a spy. The old Moscow Rule “Vary your pattern” is relevant even today. Now, spies will have to learn not to fall into predictable patterns and keep the AI guessing.

To understand what goes on in a spy’s head, you need to study real spies and how they have worked. I recommend looking into the life of the late Tony Mendez, the CIA’s master of disguise. Ben Afflack played him in the movie Argo, which was a highly accurate presentation of the planning and execution of a critical mission. However, if you read any of Mendez’s memoirish books, you’ll find his life was far more exciting than a movie portrayed it. If you study Mendez the man, you’ll see why he was the best of spies.

On the flip side, Kim Philby, one of the Cambridge 5 who sold British secrets to the Russians for decades before his defection, is a prime example of a spy who used his exceptional intelligence and his spy training to fool his superiors in British intelligence. If Mendez is a case study of a good guy, Philby is a case study in the fact that sometimes despite all the training and psychological assessments, one falls through the cracks.

In Part I, I spoke a bit about personal ethical dilemmas a spy might have because their actions under a cover persona may be 180º off from their real self. However, a spy also has to deal with the ethical dilemmas presented when the needs of national security collide with a person’s individual rights.

Spies use psychological manipulation. It’s one of their biggest tools. That usage, however, can cross ethical boundaries. And I’m not talking about torture, even though that’s a big ethical boundary, but the manipulation of an individual to get them to do what the spy needs for them to do, which is, simply, to give up their country’s secrets. The spy accepts that learning the secrets of an enemy country enhances their country’s national security. In time, though, a spy can question whether the ends truly do justify the means, especially when an asset the spy has been running is taken in by the enemy country’s secret police. Though these assets may be helping the U.S., for example, if they are discovered, their country considers them traitors, and their punishment can be fatal. The spy will have to deal with the knowledge of the role they played in their asset’s demise.

Some will argue that anything goes when it comes to protecting our national security. Friends and foes alike will say this. But that “anything goes” mentality turned out to be a big negative for the U.S., in particular with its reliance post-9/11 on extraordinary rendition and enhanced interrogation techniques.

Indeed, even the act of surveilling someone without their knowledge to gather the intel a spy needs to fashion their approach to a potential target is ethically questionable in that it’s a clear violation of a person’s right to privacy, especially in countries where that right is enshrined in law, like the U.S. That takes a toll on both the target and the spy.

Espionage has always evolved within changing societies and governments, not to mention continually advancing technology. But at the base of espionage is the human being, the spy, and the core principles of human behavior and psychology will always be present.

The spy will always seek to execute their mission for the national security of their nation. But when that spy removes their trench coat and fedora, the human being is there, possibly scarred but with resiliency to do it all over again.