(1) I think reflexive control is unfamiliar because (as you note) the term "reflex" is used in a peculiar way, and the new way is explained in abstract and ambiguous terms. If I understand the concept correctly, the following example captures it: I want to climb Mt. Washington, but you want me to climb Mt. Adams, so you simply change the trail markers. But If I know you are out there changing my trail markers, I'll follow the sign to Mt. Adams and end up on Mt. Washington, where I want to be. But if you know that I think you are changing trail signs, you'll leave them where they are, and I'll end up on Mt. Adams. But if I know that you think....etc. Hence the "degrees of reflex." But playing that game correctly requires perfect knowledge of what level one is on, and democracies with free press are usually transparent.
The examples in the essay seem to me to be better explained by the simpler strategy: "Just leave a shiny object on the path to Mt. Adams, and the press and the public will rush past the faded marker pointing to Mt. Washington." This is a well-worn strategy that goes back at least to the myth of Atalanta and the golden apples.
(2) On the domestic scene, the spectacle of the Republican House with its flamboyantly idiotic committee chairs is Exhibit B of the shiny object theory. Exhibit A is of course Trump himself whose rhetoric becomes ever more inflammatory as people habituate to the previous level. This is working beautifully to get attention, but at a possible cost: As the volume goes up, more and more outrageous behavior is required. Come 2024, someone in the mold of No-drama Obama or even Sleepy Joe would come as a welcome relief.
(3) There is no way to out-flamboyant people like Trump, MTG, or Jim Jordan. We need to have faith in the general rule that shiny objects lose their luster, especially when they lead you astray. We need to keep the signpost to Mt. Washington in good repair, and groom its path so that it is free of mud-holes and poison ivy, and keep the rest rooms at the top clean.
I totally agree with your statement “1) I think reflexive control is unfamiliar because (as you note) the term "reflex" is used in a peculiar way, and the new way is explained in abstract and ambiguous terms”. Still trying to wrap my head around it. Talking it over with husband, we both came up with “Pavlovian response” as a possible alternative descriptor of the behavior being exploited. Note Pavlov was Russian and thus part of their deep history of mind control. He actually did work on reflex responses. So, you couple deep understanding of reflexive responses with “judo” and you have a winning combination.
Masterful analysis! Thank you Asha. You are wonderfully skilled at seeing a morass of chaos & confusion which is what I see too, but you first explain it in the view from 50,000 feet, very helpful, and then you’re able to recognize the weapons of Soviet information warfare still used by Putin / Russia, and you know what to bring. If it’s a knife fight or whatever. Masterfully presented and also see it from this angle, and from this other view. Looking at it from top to bottom. From side to side. Even physics laws!! You’re a National Treasure Asha!
1. Disinformation isn't a particularly savory form of warfare, particularly for democratic societies who pride themselves on being the good guys. It is also a a lot harder to pull off such operations in an open society. From experience, I would also argue a disproportionate number of U.S. policymakers are somewhat insulated and lack street-smarts.
With that said, however, those of us who have been involved with counterinsurgency operations have seen plenty of what could be called "reflexive control" from groups like al Qa'ida, Hezbollah, and the Islamic State. It may simply be a matter of synthesizing the concept with observations and experiences.
2. I'd say a prime example of domestic actors using reflexive control against an American audience was the disinformation campaign which followed the 2020 election. The disinformation campaign created "concerns" and anger amongst certain constituencies about election fraud. These constituencies' "concerns and anger" then gave a significant number of GOP Reps and even a few Senators a reason, or excuse, to vote against election certification.
3. In the information space, I would start by recommending a recommitment to ethics in journalism. I'd also set the evidence bar very high when it comes to polarizing subjects like election fraud and political malevolence. In addition, lawsuits should be utilized when appropriate. Finally, Americans need to get more street-smart and dial the partisanship down a few notches, except when it comes to the Trumpists and other authoritarians.
I am interested to learn more about Dr. Vladimir Lefebvre. I you tubed him. Found a few talks. But not a quick understanding on my part. Ha ha. Gives new meaning to dense. I will try and do this over the weekend. Hats off!
I'll take quiz 3 and say, our information eco system is filled with so many sources of information. We can use reflexive control to counter propaganda and disinformation by interrupting our own reflexes when we share posts or clips without first fact checking its authenticity and also considering the story's underlying motive. Also we should remember stories that play into our emotions to get people riled up. So fact checking is key.
I think we’re giving Trump way too much credit for being smart (e.g., Professor at Wharton, “Trump was the dumbest God damn student I ever had.”) and savvy enough to intentionally use reflexive control. This trait is probably one result of his multiple personality disorders, including malignant narcissism, and his belief that he is never wrong, the blame is always with others, and he has a need to be the center of attention! So he constantly creates chaos, including reflexive control, trying to achieve his end game as the media laps it up because it is great for ratings. It will never happen, but to stop or limit his use of reflexive control, media outlets need to ignore Trump’s bizarre campaign speeches, so-called “truths,” and other statements unless they are newsworthy.
The main theory with Professor Asha Rangappa is that she is so vastly intelligent that the depths of her psyche go very, very far beyond what she may or may not teach. With people these days, as per the nature of this course (disinformation), a huge degree of organizational psychology is known perhaps by her, or certainly, even if she has never heard this term according to the discipline of unique forms of psychology, as taught within the realm of higher education. The most advanced organizations of the United States do not operate the way more inferior organizations operate, where there is a "head." Unique personnel are taught at the level of insight that they might comprehend a fact, or even a strategy, that they may use to work towards organizational goals. It's not simply that organizations don't have a head in the real "big leagues." Every last organization that operates within the realm of controlling sensitive information, including related to any form of ongoing investigation, has some sort of strategy that will prevent suspects or rivals from knowing ahead of time what to expect. Simple familiarity with most organizations of any nature of the sort, especially socially, permits most people to have at least some degree of insight into this, including somewhere like a department store. Because ongoing theft and shoplifting is protected by loss prevention personnel, so it goes that nearly every last person familiar with civilization in the United States has one form or another of insight into this, So this, due to the nature of public information, is absolutely such.
Even record labels of every variety have the right to look into any individual or entity that they consider a threat to them, or a potential corporate asset that could pay off. Because of the very nature of data brokers and, for lack of a better term, "cookies," because of which everyone shares information with god knows who, nearly anyone is able to participate in the data driven age. If we download an app, we simply automatically click the "I accept the terms and conditions," inherent to all of which is our consent that will share what we do with our technology with such an app.
It's based, largely, on wireless technology,
Now, with Professor Asha Rangappa, she is a former spy. She went to Columbia, more or less a narco-state, as a declared FBI agent, in one way or another while what remained of Pablo Escobar's drug cartel controlled it to an extent. Once any American enters a foreign nation, they are no longer subject to American law; they are subject to the nature of that foreign nation. That sure was something dangerous to do.
But understanding what espionage is, as what is known to all to be what a spy engages in, spies are trained to the point that they can pass any form of polygraph -- typically -- with no knowledge provided to the polygraphers that they have lied whatsoever.
On the other hand, I'm not so certain that anyone with top secret security clearance who was provided with top secret information during her tenure at the FBI can officially have the FBI "leave her alone" as far as cyber measures ever again. I don't think, ever, that people like Professor Rangappa don't know this, nor that she would ever lie unethically in any way that could possibly break any American felony statute at all. Her curriculum vitae describes an attorney so knowledgeable on law in every respect that it's a real pity for anyone who would like to accuse her of doing the wrong thing by misleading people in any way, especially in an era where the Commander in Chief calls absurd terrorists "prisoners of war" and frees them after a transparent attempt to murder the legislative branch of federal government.
On the opposite hand, the Commander in Chief has the highest-level security clearance in the Western World, And he deals with every last bizarre national security threat we face. So my assumption is, I suppose, that I can't know what he means, either, in any way, because we know he is lying, but if he had to go through the motions and engage in utter stupidity in relation to official actions to insure some degree of domestic tranquility or neutralize a greater, looming threat then so be it. Because we don't know.
That we don't know is clear.
Professor Rangappa said once in her lecture that as a Quantico graduate, she took to using the Enneagram to personality profile. This method is known as hocus pocus. Does she know that, for example? I don't know.
She could simply be playing dumb, or in the insanely competitive world of spycraft, she may -- as someone unfamiliar with the typical psychology major and higher level electives --have never encountered a college textbook like this:
Be very careful about the supposedly illegal "things" other people do, and what mens rea actually is. People with access to extreme levels of information may very well make decisions and engage in actions that do not appear to be "kosher," when, in fact, they are taking it on the chin for the good of others or to diffuse a threat in some way where their actions, despite deception, simply do not amount to one iota of wrongful conduct.
Professor Asha Rangappa is a national security expert. And an expert investigator. When it's apparent that our national security is highly threatened in multiple ways, people will lie. In fact, any party documented as potentially guilty of anything major, especially within networks of potential co-conspirators, will be lied to by just about anyone who understands this type of policy, which is the way of the modern world since Bin Laden declared war on the United circa 1998.
Beware: There are hundreds of forms of terrorism on the books in the United State, as far as unique laws would have it, The only declared war, still to date, within our borders is the War on Terrorism, Period. Engaging in it whatsoever is not a win, even if one believes that there will be some form of "rise" of any form of establishment that defies the American Constitutional system.
Beware also, that warping the evidence standard and believing that this goes unnoticed, or that no investigation occurs when horrific violations of law occur based on propaganda in place of the true admissibility standard is going to deprive the People of our rights is horribly mistaken for anyone who engages in it.
But know, also, that many people know law, as well as many forms of American policy, and understand many built-in methods of keeping our secrets secret as a nation.
Then understand the First Amendment and unique scenarios and position players who may utilize different applications of American law based on evidence standards that apply to them and the organizations of which they are a part that do not make them liable; then understand how ideology is not different, necessarily, between parts to a whole, fine-oiled machine that works together even though its formation as a global infrastructure is not regimented the way robotics might understand the term.
What is the definition of transparency? All my secrets -- all of my personal information to everyone I meet?! Or digitally transparent with enough responsible government and other responsible personnel and entities who must uphold the law in my favor unless I engage in something far outside of my rights, and must apprehend anyone engaging in any form of deprivation of my rights if they know better at the time....
I think reflexive control is an unfamiliar concept because too many people trained in marketing and communications in the United States are too narrowly focused on branding and changing or managing perceptions. Their training is not well suited for people not raised on advertising, such as Russians. The communications training most applicable to understanding reflexive control is behavior change communications models, such as used in public health (e.g., getting people to wear seatbelts or use latrines), environment (i.e., getting people to recycle), or technology (i.e., getting people to use a new device) especially in a developing world context. Getting someone to buy Crest versus Colgate toothpaste in the United States is a fit for the most common training in the United States. This training doesn't work, however, for somebody who needs to persuade people in the developing world who don't use toothbrushes to buy toothpaste. The latter is much harder and does not involve branding or perceptions management.
Another problem on top of the fact many do not understand reflexive control is the fact those who do may not get the significance of social media to microtarget messages to individuals most vulnerable to a given message as well as conduct network analysis/audience research at a very cheap price easily across borders to identify targets and their influencers. For example, a simple Facebook ad selling Trump teddy bears would get you a ton of information on who liked and shared the ad along with the names and addresses of anyone who bought one. If you targeted that ad to a swing county in a swing state before an election, the audience research/network analysis information such a low budget ad gleaned could move the needle when used for microtargeting. My point is social media puts reflexive control on steroids, and it is really frightening since microtargeted messages may not be seen outside of a particular information bubble, and you can't combat something nobody in a position of power even knows about. Teixeira operating in the open for so long without being reported is an example of such a microtargeted information bubble.
I read this the day before I watched the Apple movie Tetris. It may be simplistic, and I have no idea how factual the movie was, but I think it was a pretty good illustration of an answer to question #1. The protagonist came across as an optimistic, fairly straightforward pitch man for his project. The Russians he was dealing with were playing 3D chess behind his back, but he plowed ahead with his project assuming that he could see what would be to the best interest of the parties--a win-win for him and the Russians without regard for cultural or ideological differences.
My experience with doing business with people from other cultures is extremely limited, but in the one project where I had to bring a bunch of American scientists to convince the regulatory agency of a EU nation to approve our product, I found it challenging (and hilarious) how hard it was to change the Americans' point of view. They were so optimistic and certain that if they showed them the scientific data, well then it was a slam dunk--an obviously logical decision. And that was with our allies! They got a humiliating dressing down from the chairman of the reviewing committee who then came up afterwards and proposed that we should partner up with this nice company in their country. And this was with one of our allies!
So I think the reason reflexive control hasn't caught on is that as a tribe, Americans are not all that devious. This is not to say that none of us are, but in general, an optimistic and straightforward approach is our first tendency.
Many years ago there was a Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen who was adept at reflexive control and getting the response from the media he wanted or in some cases what he didn’t want, he tagged it “feeding the chooks”
Since you are actually calling out Russian activities, and the MSM did the same, at least someone is realizing it and, frankly, talking about it all the time.
Your charting of "reflexive control" looks very similar to middle school rumor-spreading. None of it is new. And love of political drama is human, not American.
Russian disinformation was tied to the narrative that residents of Palestine, OH were lied to by authorities. They were lied to by authorities. See the on-the-ground reporting by Status Coup. Those people are not crisis actors. They didn't put on makeup for the camera.
We should really be skeptical when Russia blamed, and even if they are, still investigate the truth. Tarring messages as "Russian disinformation" is not the end of the analysis. Real reporting means you find out the truth. Because the truth matters.
In the case of Podesta, maybe the Russian did leak the emails. So that means it is true that HRC had a private server in her basement for government business, her advisors thought she had terrible political instincts, that large donations from foreign governments induced her to attend conferences.
Yet, the content is waived aside as unworthy of discussion because of its possible affiliation with Russians. Reporters are supposed to engage in critical thinking. They don't have to react with such suspension of disbelief.
“Reporters are supposed to engage in critical thinking. They don't have to react with such suspension of disbelief.” I agree. At the same time the reporting of Russian interference and long time relationship with useful idiot Trump was downplayed, for years, why? “Both-sides-ism”? Laziness? Fear of retribution/lawsuits etc?
(1) I think reflexive control is unfamiliar because (as you note) the term "reflex" is used in a peculiar way, and the new way is explained in abstract and ambiguous terms. If I understand the concept correctly, the following example captures it: I want to climb Mt. Washington, but you want me to climb Mt. Adams, so you simply change the trail markers. But If I know you are out there changing my trail markers, I'll follow the sign to Mt. Adams and end up on Mt. Washington, where I want to be. But if you know that I think you are changing trail signs, you'll leave them where they are, and I'll end up on Mt. Adams. But if I know that you think....etc. Hence the "degrees of reflex." But playing that game correctly requires perfect knowledge of what level one is on, and democracies with free press are usually transparent.
The examples in the essay seem to me to be better explained by the simpler strategy: "Just leave a shiny object on the path to Mt. Adams, and the press and the public will rush past the faded marker pointing to Mt. Washington." This is a well-worn strategy that goes back at least to the myth of Atalanta and the golden apples.
(2) On the domestic scene, the spectacle of the Republican House with its flamboyantly idiotic committee chairs is Exhibit B of the shiny object theory. Exhibit A is of course Trump himself whose rhetoric becomes ever more inflammatory as people habituate to the previous level. This is working beautifully to get attention, but at a possible cost: As the volume goes up, more and more outrageous behavior is required. Come 2024, someone in the mold of No-drama Obama or even Sleepy Joe would come as a welcome relief.
(3) There is no way to out-flamboyant people like Trump, MTG, or Jim Jordan. We need to have faith in the general rule that shiny objects lose their luster, especially when they lead you astray. We need to keep the signpost to Mt. Washington in good repair, and groom its path so that it is free of mud-holes and poison ivy, and keep the rest rooms at the top clean.
I love the Mt. Washington/Mt. Adams analogy! I think you illustrate the degrees of reflex perfectly
Yes. Me too. Having grown up in New England it’s an added help for me as teaching aid. But I get it!! 😊👍
I totally agree with your statement “1) I think reflexive control is unfamiliar because (as you note) the term "reflex" is used in a peculiar way, and the new way is explained in abstract and ambiguous terms”. Still trying to wrap my head around it. Talking it over with husband, we both came up with “Pavlovian response” as a possible alternative descriptor of the behavior being exploited. Note Pavlov was Russian and thus part of their deep history of mind control. He actually did work on reflex responses. So, you couple deep understanding of reflexive responses with “judo” and you have a winning combination.
After a couple decades of marriage who does not use reflexive control techniques. Thought I'd lighten things up a bit.
This reminds me of a quote from My Big Fat Greek Wedding: “The man is the ‘head’ of the family but the woman is the neck” 😂
Masterful analysis! Thank you Asha. You are wonderfully skilled at seeing a morass of chaos & confusion which is what I see too, but you first explain it in the view from 50,000 feet, very helpful, and then you’re able to recognize the weapons of Soviet information warfare still used by Putin / Russia, and you know what to bring. If it’s a knife fight or whatever. Masterfully presented and also see it from this angle, and from this other view. Looking at it from top to bottom. From side to side. Even physics laws!! You’re a National Treasure Asha!
1. Disinformation isn't a particularly savory form of warfare, particularly for democratic societies who pride themselves on being the good guys. It is also a a lot harder to pull off such operations in an open society. From experience, I would also argue a disproportionate number of U.S. policymakers are somewhat insulated and lack street-smarts.
With that said, however, those of us who have been involved with counterinsurgency operations have seen plenty of what could be called "reflexive control" from groups like al Qa'ida, Hezbollah, and the Islamic State. It may simply be a matter of synthesizing the concept with observations and experiences.
2. I'd say a prime example of domestic actors using reflexive control against an American audience was the disinformation campaign which followed the 2020 election. The disinformation campaign created "concerns" and anger amongst certain constituencies about election fraud. These constituencies' "concerns and anger" then gave a significant number of GOP Reps and even a few Senators a reason, or excuse, to vote against election certification.
3. In the information space, I would start by recommending a recommitment to ethics in journalism. I'd also set the evidence bar very high when it comes to polarizing subjects like election fraud and political malevolence. In addition, lawsuits should be utilized when appropriate. Finally, Americans need to get more street-smart and dial the partisanship down a few notches, except when it comes to the Trumpists and other authoritarians.
I am interested to learn more about Dr. Vladimir Lefebvre. I you tubed him. Found a few talks. But not a quick understanding on my part. Ha ha. Gives new meaning to dense. I will try and do this over the weekend. Hats off!
Professor, another excellent lesson but looks like this is “Class 13,” professor! (Says the nerdy guy sitting in the back row!)
Oops! I will fix
I'll take quiz 3 and say, our information eco system is filled with so many sources of information. We can use reflexive control to counter propaganda and disinformation by interrupting our own reflexes when we share posts or clips without first fact checking its authenticity and also considering the story's underlying motive. Also we should remember stories that play into our emotions to get people riled up. So fact checking is key.
Love the story. Thanks for sharing.
I think we’re giving Trump way too much credit for being smart (e.g., Professor at Wharton, “Trump was the dumbest God damn student I ever had.”) and savvy enough to intentionally use reflexive control. This trait is probably one result of his multiple personality disorders, including malignant narcissism, and his belief that he is never wrong, the blame is always with others, and he has a need to be the center of attention! So he constantly creates chaos, including reflexive control, trying to achieve his end game as the media laps it up because it is great for ratings. It will never happen, but to stop or limit his use of reflexive control, media outlets need to ignore Trump’s bizarre campaign speeches, so-called “truths,” and other statements unless they are newsworthy.
The main theory with Professor Asha Rangappa is that she is so vastly intelligent that the depths of her psyche go very, very far beyond what she may or may not teach. With people these days, as per the nature of this course (disinformation), a huge degree of organizational psychology is known perhaps by her, or certainly, even if she has never heard this term according to the discipline of unique forms of psychology, as taught within the realm of higher education. The most advanced organizations of the United States do not operate the way more inferior organizations operate, where there is a "head." Unique personnel are taught at the level of insight that they might comprehend a fact, or even a strategy, that they may use to work towards organizational goals. It's not simply that organizations don't have a head in the real "big leagues." Every last organization that operates within the realm of controlling sensitive information, including related to any form of ongoing investigation, has some sort of strategy that will prevent suspects or rivals from knowing ahead of time what to expect. Simple familiarity with most organizations of any nature of the sort, especially socially, permits most people to have at least some degree of insight into this, including somewhere like a department store. Because ongoing theft and shoplifting is protected by loss prevention personnel, so it goes that nearly every last person familiar with civilization in the United States has one form or another of insight into this, So this, due to the nature of public information, is absolutely such.
Even record labels of every variety have the right to look into any individual or entity that they consider a threat to them, or a potential corporate asset that could pay off. Because of the very nature of data brokers and, for lack of a better term, "cookies," because of which everyone shares information with god knows who, nearly anyone is able to participate in the data driven age. If we download an app, we simply automatically click the "I accept the terms and conditions," inherent to all of which is our consent that will share what we do with our technology with such an app.
It's based, largely, on wireless technology,
Now, with Professor Asha Rangappa, she is a former spy. She went to Columbia, more or less a narco-state, as a declared FBI agent, in one way or another while what remained of Pablo Escobar's drug cartel controlled it to an extent. Once any American enters a foreign nation, they are no longer subject to American law; they are subject to the nature of that foreign nation. That sure was something dangerous to do.
But understanding what espionage is, as what is known to all to be what a spy engages in, spies are trained to the point that they can pass any form of polygraph -- typically -- with no knowledge provided to the polygraphers that they have lied whatsoever.
On the other hand, I'm not so certain that anyone with top secret security clearance who was provided with top secret information during her tenure at the FBI can officially have the FBI "leave her alone" as far as cyber measures ever again. I don't think, ever, that people like Professor Rangappa don't know this, nor that she would ever lie unethically in any way that could possibly break any American felony statute at all. Her curriculum vitae describes an attorney so knowledgeable on law in every respect that it's a real pity for anyone who would like to accuse her of doing the wrong thing by misleading people in any way, especially in an era where the Commander in Chief calls absurd terrorists "prisoners of war" and frees them after a transparent attempt to murder the legislative branch of federal government.
On the opposite hand, the Commander in Chief has the highest-level security clearance in the Western World, And he deals with every last bizarre national security threat we face. So my assumption is, I suppose, that I can't know what he means, either, in any way, because we know he is lying, but if he had to go through the motions and engage in utter stupidity in relation to official actions to insure some degree of domestic tranquility or neutralize a greater, looming threat then so be it. Because we don't know.
That we don't know is clear.
Professor Rangappa said once in her lecture that as a Quantico graduate, she took to using the Enneagram to personality profile. This method is known as hocus pocus. Does she know that, for example? I don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enneagram_of_Personality
She could simply be playing dumb, or in the insanely competitive world of spycraft, she may -- as someone unfamiliar with the typical psychology major and higher level electives --have never encountered a college textbook like this:
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/theories-of-personality-with-infotrac-_duane-schultz/276355/item/15742415/
Be very careful about the supposedly illegal "things" other people do, and what mens rea actually is. People with access to extreme levels of information may very well make decisions and engage in actions that do not appear to be "kosher," when, in fact, they are taking it on the chin for the good of others or to diffuse a threat in some way where their actions, despite deception, simply do not amount to one iota of wrongful conduct.
Professor Asha Rangappa is a national security expert. And an expert investigator. When it's apparent that our national security is highly threatened in multiple ways, people will lie. In fact, any party documented as potentially guilty of anything major, especially within networks of potential co-conspirators, will be lied to by just about anyone who understands this type of policy, which is the way of the modern world since Bin Laden declared war on the United circa 1998.
Beware: There are hundreds of forms of terrorism on the books in the United State, as far as unique laws would have it, The only declared war, still to date, within our borders is the War on Terrorism, Period. Engaging in it whatsoever is not a win, even if one believes that there will be some form of "rise" of any form of establishment that defies the American Constitutional system.
Beware also, that warping the evidence standard and believing that this goes unnoticed, or that no investigation occurs when horrific violations of law occur based on propaganda in place of the true admissibility standard is going to deprive the People of our rights is horribly mistaken for anyone who engages in it.
But know, also, that many people know law, as well as many forms of American policy, and understand many built-in methods of keeping our secrets secret as a nation.
Then understand the First Amendment and unique scenarios and position players who may utilize different applications of American law based on evidence standards that apply to them and the organizations of which they are a part that do not make them liable; then understand how ideology is not different, necessarily, between parts to a whole, fine-oiled machine that works together even though its formation as a global infrastructure is not regimented the way robotics might understand the term.
Check it out, the strange useful idiot:
https://soundcloud.com/matthew-m-doherty
Solve the equation, if you choose!
What is the definition of transparency? All my secrets -- all of my personal information to everyone I meet?! Or digitally transparent with enough responsible government and other responsible personnel and entities who must uphold the law in my favor unless I engage in something far outside of my rights, and must apprehend anyone engaging in any form of deprivation of my rights if they know better at the time....
I think reflexive control is an unfamiliar concept because too many people trained in marketing and communications in the United States are too narrowly focused on branding and changing or managing perceptions. Their training is not well suited for people not raised on advertising, such as Russians. The communications training most applicable to understanding reflexive control is behavior change communications models, such as used in public health (e.g., getting people to wear seatbelts or use latrines), environment (i.e., getting people to recycle), or technology (i.e., getting people to use a new device) especially in a developing world context. Getting someone to buy Crest versus Colgate toothpaste in the United States is a fit for the most common training in the United States. This training doesn't work, however, for somebody who needs to persuade people in the developing world who don't use toothbrushes to buy toothpaste. The latter is much harder and does not involve branding or perceptions management.
Another problem on top of the fact many do not understand reflexive control is the fact those who do may not get the significance of social media to microtarget messages to individuals most vulnerable to a given message as well as conduct network analysis/audience research at a very cheap price easily across borders to identify targets and their influencers. For example, a simple Facebook ad selling Trump teddy bears would get you a ton of information on who liked and shared the ad along with the names and addresses of anyone who bought one. If you targeted that ad to a swing county in a swing state before an election, the audience research/network analysis information such a low budget ad gleaned could move the needle when used for microtargeting. My point is social media puts reflexive control on steroids, and it is really frightening since microtargeted messages may not be seen outside of a particular information bubble, and you can't combat something nobody in a position of power even knows about. Teixeira operating in the open for so long without being reported is an example of such a microtargeted information bubble.
One of the most important classes so far. We thank you for that.
I read this the day before I watched the Apple movie Tetris. It may be simplistic, and I have no idea how factual the movie was, but I think it was a pretty good illustration of an answer to question #1. The protagonist came across as an optimistic, fairly straightforward pitch man for his project. The Russians he was dealing with were playing 3D chess behind his back, but he plowed ahead with his project assuming that he could see what would be to the best interest of the parties--a win-win for him and the Russians without regard for cultural or ideological differences.
My experience with doing business with people from other cultures is extremely limited, but in the one project where I had to bring a bunch of American scientists to convince the regulatory agency of a EU nation to approve our product, I found it challenging (and hilarious) how hard it was to change the Americans' point of view. They were so optimistic and certain that if they showed them the scientific data, well then it was a slam dunk--an obviously logical decision. And that was with our allies! They got a humiliating dressing down from the chairman of the reviewing committee who then came up afterwards and proposed that we should partner up with this nice company in their country. And this was with one of our allies!
So I think the reason reflexive control hasn't caught on is that as a tribe, Americans are not all that devious. This is not to say that none of us are, but in general, an optimistic and straightforward approach is our first tendency.
Many years ago there was a Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen who was adept at reflexive control and getting the response from the media he wanted or in some cases what he didn’t want, he tagged it “feeding the chooks”
Since you are actually calling out Russian activities, and the MSM did the same, at least someone is realizing it and, frankly, talking about it all the time.
Your charting of "reflexive control" looks very similar to middle school rumor-spreading. None of it is new. And love of political drama is human, not American.
Russian disinformation was tied to the narrative that residents of Palestine, OH were lied to by authorities. They were lied to by authorities. See the on-the-ground reporting by Status Coup. Those people are not crisis actors. They didn't put on makeup for the camera.
We should really be skeptical when Russia blamed, and even if they are, still investigate the truth. Tarring messages as "Russian disinformation" is not the end of the analysis. Real reporting means you find out the truth. Because the truth matters.
In the case of Podesta, maybe the Russian did leak the emails. So that means it is true that HRC had a private server in her basement for government business, her advisors thought she had terrible political instincts, that large donations from foreign governments induced her to attend conferences.
Yet, the content is waived aside as unworthy of discussion because of its possible affiliation with Russians. Reporters are supposed to engage in critical thinking. They don't have to react with such suspension of disbelief.
“Reporters are supposed to engage in critical thinking. They don't have to react with such suspension of disbelief.” I agree. At the same time the reporting of Russian interference and long time relationship with useful idiot Trump was downplayed, for years, why? “Both-sides-ism”? Laziness? Fear of retribution/lawsuits etc?
excellent and eye-opening