Why I played my recent stories and how they did.
A few commenters in some of my recent stories have asked what my goal was or why I was writing what I did. They questioned what I hoped to accomplish. My responses have generally been vague. I hope after reading this, you’ll both gain clarity and appreciate reasons for initial response ambivalence.
I appreciate the short term focus and intensity of others both in get out the vote efforts and in efforts aimed at persuading undecided persons. I believe the GOTV accomplished two pieces. It convinces aligned persons who have despaired at their lack of power to actually vote. In this way, it takes a weak ally and makes that person strong. GOTV also has value in swaying undecideds too.
I personally have been targeting a different set. I’ve been after those on the other side. I realize this has a lower return on investment. Though I feel that I can be socially awkward and am of lesser value to the GOTV efforts than other persons while I have had position to be trusted agent in the other’s camp. In this way, I gain better returns there than do others. Sure, this still may be less ROI than the GOTV efforts, but for me personally it is a better match. As I believe the GOTV had capacity, better I go the way I did. I’ll show you my plan, methods, and assessment of effort (or lack thereof and why) in a moment.
First, I’d like to highlight a topic I’ve commented upon in several places, such as here, here, here, and here. Humor can be persuasive. I do believe it does better at convincing undecided and reinforcing one’s own, though it still can have effect with those opposed. For the opposition, one must be careful not to create direct challenge however as this shuts down mental receivers. Split Second Persuasion gives us this as Simple, Perceived self-interest, Incongruent, Confident, Empathetic (SPICE). The reason for this is that, per Kahneman, our fast thinking mind automatically assumes truth in information while our slow processes are responsible for credulity. Creating incongruity, which humor does, short circuits the slow thinking processes. It’s like shutting down the surveillance radars before a strike.
Unfortunately I’m slow on the uptake to drop witty lines. I regularly have those moments two hours later thinking “I should have said...” Hence, I go for a different method. I try subtlety. I try to work at the margins of persuasion. I look to bat singles and doubles. Over time this can build up. See Difficult Conversations, Crucial Conversations, and Emotional Intelligence. In this, I do look for common understanding before making my cut.
I have an analogy for you from Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape (SERE) School. We can’t talk about the ERE but we can the S. During this time, we made snares to catch rabbits. The wild rabbits, however, faired well as once the snares passed muster, they were disassembled. This wasn’t for the rabbit’s sake so much as for ours. Wild rabbits were potential disease vectors. So the school provided each group with a farmed rabbit. We’d do everything from killing through skinning, gutting, and butchering, to cooking and eating. We were taught to make a quick kill minimizing suffering. To do this, we’d hold the rabbit by the hind legs and stroke the animal petting it so it relaxed. This was subterfuge and after it relaxed, a swing of a club to the back base of the skull where the spinal column connects. Do it right, one shot one kill near instantaneously. While not getting kills, I see this getting the rabbit to relax immediately prior to the action shot matching my method in the other camp. When they relax, I can score a point without their mental guard being up.
Below is a copy of the plan I wrote myself in early September. I will note I was considering the Levels of War story as an independent apolitical piece beforehand. Then I realized I could fold it into the plan essentially as a Trojan Horse or poison pill. Assessment of effectiveness, as we will see, turns out to be difficult.
————————————————————————————————
A 2020 Informational Scheme of Maneuver
1. Background:
1A. LinkedIn Connection population - target audience - problem set:
Being retired military, my connections on LinkedIn are predominately conservative and Republican. Taking a wild guess, I would put this at 2/3 the population of which I would say 2/3 of those belong in the Trump Tribe. This is not to say they’re foolish. More likely they’re busy and unable to put adequate mental thought to electoral consequences. More, they’re already emotionally invested in their team; sunk costs are hard to cut loose.
1B. Why we debate - and how such suggests targeting:
Assume we debate for the following reasons:
A. To test ideas
B. To galvanize support
C. To convince the undecided
D. To persuade opposition
Testing ideas seems noble but is rarely done. Such requires open minds and fair play by all participants. It requires a mindset that presenters don’t lose, only ideas do.
Galvanizing support won’t work with the plurality of my connections being in a foreign tribe. Direct confrontation with the target in such an effort would be the means here as it would score points with allies. Allies are lacking in my connections.
Similarly, the undecided are unlikely to be in this population set. Convincing the undecided should use both a factual basis with emotional connection.
Persuading opposition can be difficult. Typically they’re already invested and emotionally tied. And they want to win. Direct confrontation won’t work and pressing facts against central tenants gets perceived as direct confrontation. One must work the periphery. Find issues not yet emotionally engaged. Create resonance and agreement here creating a trend of successful agreement. Build to likely unexplored but politically potent themes.
1C. A history of previous success:
One of Trump’s first actions as President was to back out of Trans Pacific Partnership. Yet most don’t think about this. It is both so long ago as to be forgotten and involved international relations which most never paid attention to anyway. Twice now I’ve had conversations with Trumpists insisting “find me a mistake he has made.” TPP was the answer. They hadn’t considered it, they weren’t invested. Showing how this wasn’t a mere trade deal but rather a building to a military bloc for countering China in both instances caused the Trumpists to pause and think. They accepted leaving TPP was a mistake.
2. Plan:
2A. Objectives:
Primary (Overall): Desired - Sway connections away from voting Trump
Required - At the very least, create a moment mental pause; induce doubt
Intermediate Objectives: Establish a base of common understanding
Create resonance on non-threatening subjects verifying self as trusted agent
Recruit outside expert teaching as additional “trusted agent”
Introduce thoughts counter though not directly antagonistic to Trumpism
Tie trusted agent authority to thoughts
Secondary Objectives: Link target audience to liberal / progressive site such that social media and search algorithms are partially skewed to reduce display of biased propaganda.
Spread into the connections’ connections likely to also be Tribe Trump
2B. Actions:
Phase 1: By the end of September, write three articles to Daily Kos regarding military philosophy and application of such to National Security
(Levels of War piece, Boyd & Charles Kenny “marriage,” and Flats-isms)
Phase 2: Early to mid October, post links to Daily Kos articles on LinkedIn
Phase 3 (branch): Depending on response, consider summary piece of Trump’s security-based failings near end of October - don’t push such confrontation unless minds seem to have paused. Consider also a fifth piece specific to an area not likely well known but with devastating national impact - the improper prosecution of medical researchers as “Thousands Talents complicit” as this creates a negative sum game; in order to hurt China, we hurt ourselves.
3. Measures:
3A. Performance:
# LinkedIn views
# LinkedIn shares (likes) - goes to visibility
# of comments - goes to visibility
3B: Effectiveness:
Assessing vote persuasion will be difficult as will permeating biased algorithms. As such, will take a best we can do which may give some indication but won’t give an answer.
# LinkedIn shares (likes) - goes to mental resonance
# and flavor of comments
# connections lost
# connections gained
change in quality of other connections’ posts - more, equal, or less Trumpist and Trump enabling posts?
3B1: Update:
It has been brought to my attention that artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms such as used on LinkedIn will preclude effectiveness measures making most un-assessable. The system may cue off the inputs and decide itself to show less hence not giving accurate indication of persons affected. Alternately, it could decide that such negative indicators will instill anger and keep me online more, hence the methods could actually be working but show opposite. Hence both flavor of comments and change in quality of others’ posts are not relevant measures. In addition to The Social Dilemma linked above, The Great Hack also shows problems.
* Anne Applebaum agrees with the methods of this plan. Trusted agents matter. Humor matters. Boyd’s counter guerrilla and anti-communist methods using moral standing work. Others supporting humor include Split Second Persuasion with “SPICE” - Simple, Perceived self-interest, Incongruity, Confidence, Empathy. Thinking Fast and Slow supports incongruity, which can be achieved by humor, as it disarms the quality assurance aspect, or fact checking activities, of mental system two. NYTimes has pieces here and here. WAPO too. And Foreign Policy.
————————————————————————————————
You see from the update that assessment of effectiveness is difficult. We can’t tell whether a response is due to shifts in target audience or due to computer attempts at stimulation. This sucks as now I have no idea if I accomplished something or if I wasted my time. Fortunately for you, reader, I can recommend both The Social Dilemma and The Great Hack as good documentaries. While on that viewing I also came across Whose Vote Counts Explained and Kiss the Ground, both also excellent. Frontline also did a Whose Vote Counts that I have not seen though assume to be good.
Now that you’ve seen the plan, let’s talk execution.
Shortly after formulating the plan, two things happened in my LinkedIn:
One - an interesting conversation occurred regarding Observe, Orient, Decide Act decision cycles. This was apolitical though provided opportunity to recruit new contacts and reinforce my credibility as trusted agent. After the conversation, I collated the comments into a DK diary here. This also helped raise my visibility among contacts of contacts. Note this actually occurred before formalizing my plan.
Two - a post was made that I perceived as “all lives matter” against social justice. Reading the story, however, I saw not competing issues but rather example of both issues aligned in the same event. This provided me opportunity matching my plan’s intent. So I made a comment. I backfilled DK here.
These two actions definitely had an impact. Views of my profile soared. (See top picture) As to effectiveness, all I can offer is that no negative feedback was received. So I can’t actually tell you whether or not the impact was good.
Another off-plan opportunity presented itself to me as I read a War College piece regarding Swarm Wargaming. This piece made reference to Superforecasting, a subject to which I was unfamiliar. After reading about it, to say I disliked it would be an understatement. This piece went onto my LinkedIn three weeks ago. While not specific to Trumpism, it highlights large scale failures mostly at fault of Republicans that occurred in the past two decades as well as the scapegoating of such. It gained 186 views. (Note, the link under scapegoating was DK only, it did not go to LinkedIn as too blatant and antagonistic.)
With these three items in play, I worked my Is Chess Strategic piece studying Levels of War. In it after a complete and valid discussion regarding Levels of War that my connections should appreciate, I used Trans Pacific Partnership as a case study. This choice was deliberate as it showed Trump’s flawed strategy. I softened this by also tying Sanders to it though I believe this Trojan Horse carried its load. Per Flatsisms, feints and deception need to be credible. Levels of War would be palatable in any War College periodical. I posted Is Chess Strategic to my LinkedIn two weeks ago and it has had 138 views.
While preparing my writing on John Boyd as trusted agent, I refreshed myself by rereading A Discourse on Winning and Losing. From it I drew Morals as Means. I posted this to DK much earlier than I did LinkedIn. It went up on LinkedIn a week and a half ago and gained 273 views. This piece is important because it defines “evil” and “corrupt” in ways that I believe should have a picture of Trump tied to them. Yet they were written decades ago and are non-aligned so they do not to raise the mental guards of Trumpist readers.
After Morals as Means, I tied John Boyd’s methods to the priorities of Charles Kenny. In this piece, I highlight that our biggest threats threaten us all, hence we’re not in a competition. This piece, seen here on DK, was posted to LinkedIn a week ago and garnered 104 views. This one was a little more confrontational as it challenges military spending. This was the intended club death stroke.
I also posted Flatsisms a week ago. I like it for a few reasons. One example is that it states we only have one world, better we make it a better basket for all its eggs. It also discusses thoughts on risk. And it contains points learned from the very audience I am targeting. In that way, I hoped it would create resonance. It gained 111 views.
After providing all these pieces trying to work the margins, I shifted focus this past weekend. I figured that any diehards I may have reached would already have momentum while all other diehards were not reachable in the time remaining. Therefore, it was time to shift to swaying undecideds and offering support to that 1/3 persons being allies in the opposition’s camp. I wasn’t sure how I was going to do this, then the Trump Train attacked a Biden bus. I didn’t do a DK story for this. I made a short direct LinkedIn post Halloween afternoon, “Imagine you’re overseas on an armed overwatch mission. Or you’re overseas in a logistics convoy. Would this meet your understanding of hostile act or hostile intent?” This gained over 200 views in less than 3 hours while obtaining 636 views as of this writing. It did, however, gain a negative reaction within those initial three hours. That’s ok, by making a negative comment, this person put my post into his feed for all his contacts to see. I also believe I answered his challenge adequately. He won’t be persuaded but maybe others will be. His comment and my counter reply are seen in the opening photo here of a piece I provided DK Sunday, November 1st, then immediately put to LinkedIn. It has gained 95 views. It calls out Trumpists as bullies while challenging the core values of anyone considering Trump. I view it like the old Marine recruitment ads; showing you can meet challenges, appearing tough, and demonstrating altruism are actually in one’s self interest.
Monday November 2nd, I revisited the LinkedIn post regarding the Pittsburgh Steelers, All Lives Matter, and Alwyn Cashe by posting this WAPO piece back on my original comment. In doing so, I intended to show the hypocrisy of the Senate in rushing a Justice while adjourning thus denying justice.
On the morning of the 3rd, I liked an Admiral Stavridis post, “Admiral Florida man watched the moon rise over the Atlantic tonight. We have a big week coming up… And I am not talking about Halloween. Get out and vote” This seems an innocuous posting. I assure you it’s not. His recent book Sailing True North is entirely focused on character. Though never mentioning it, this book is a complete rejection of Trump and Republicans. My little bit to help spread a good virus. You’ll also note I used a vignette from Sailing True North in Is Chess Strategic? the Levels of War piece.
Also on Election Day also in the morning, I liked a piece regarding leadership, it’s worth the minute to watch. Assist in spreading another good bug.
You’ll note I never executed the branch plan for in the short time. One, I was too lazy to do the nug work of collecting all the associated examples. Two, I thought that while valid concern and argument, my topic would be too difficult due to excessive Sinophobia within our citizenry at large. Here was my thesis for that piece, “Tump is playing up Sinophobia which appeals across the political spectrum using real concerns of intellectual theft to instead target cooperative medical research thus discrediting the medical community helping to mitigate his failings to prevent and mitigate Covid-19 while simultaneously appealing to his generally xenophobic base. In this his team is also implicitly Obama bashing thus falsely painting Biden as weak and ignorant while driving up investigative case numbers so large that the load itself suggests the malicious fallacy of the cases themselves. He does this in the name of the American people all while hurting the American people.” This was just too hard a sell for me to succeed.
With this, I’m done and all that can follow is to try to gain lessons. Time for me to be in learning mode. Anyone have any thoughts regarding performance? More importantly, anyone have views to effectiveness? Ways methods and means could have been executed better? How about better methods and means? Please bring on the comments!
I’ll leave you with one last thought: if you haven’t read Erica Benner’s Be Like the Fox, you should.
Wednesday, Nov 18, 2020 · 7:12:18 PM +00:00 · Fffflats
I just put the below to my LinkedIn with its “lean conservative” load of connections.
Now that the voting and counting are over, there’s less pressure in looking at our system structurally. Highly recommend Netflix The Social Dilemma followed by both The Great Hack and Whose Vote Counts Explained.
1. https://lnkd.in/gavH6tB
2. https://lnkd.in/gYbT6hn
3. (Series of three) https://lnkd.in/gt94YuU
Unrelated but worthwhile, Kiss the Ground, https://lnkd.in/gYgAqFv