4th POG stuff

BK2004

BK2004
Verified SOF
Joined
Nov 3, 2020
Messages
39
Chortle. You're not one of them Soultrean Migration Hypothesis academics are you? :-o (kidding)

Long story short, three separate migration waves of humanity to Americas starting 12-16,000 years ago. Every 4-5 thousand years there is some technological evolution and some sort of population/environmental pressure cause people to move from the old world to the new.

First wave of humans are either wiped out, out competed, or assimilated by second wave with newer technology, we don't really know. Same thing happens to the second wave. Though the third wave has a piece of technology that was developed on the Asian steppe. Ie bows and arrows. The third wave dominates the Americas, except for a few holdouts, until European explorers arrive with a higher technological tier (also disease) and are in turn conquered.

We're seeing the exact same thing except in this case the tool is the internet. As technology evolves so does the timeline in which changes occurs.
A lot of that becomes harder to accept when we start looking at linguistic anthropological principles of drift. But I get what you’re saying. The only departure I’d throw out there is that contrary to popular belief, PSYOP isn’t really about information warfare. It’s about environmental pressure, which goes back to validate your original macro-viewpoint. We use Lewin’s Heuristic Equation after mission analysis to unpack and answer the two questions “what do I want them to do (exactly)” and “how are *we* going to make them do it”. It’s about applying the right pressure in the right context to the right place at the right time.

Most think if we want people to stop using a bridge (for example), we’d use communication to convince a population that the other bridge is safer. Or that this one is haunted. Or all the popular kids use the other bridge. Or whatever. But after analyzing the mission, a good Black Knight might recommend simply blowing the damned thing up.
 

JedisonsDad

Verified SOF
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
308
Location
Florida
In your bridge example, what’s to say that the other bridge isn’t safer and that all the cool kids use it, because the other one was blown up and is now haunted?
 

R.Caerbannog

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
1,537
A lot of that becomes harder to accept when we start looking at linguistic anthropological principles of drift. But I get what you’re saying. The only departure I’d throw out there is that contrary to popular belief, PSYOP isn’t really about information warfare. It’s about environmental pressure, which goes back to validate your original macro-viewpoint. We use Lewin’s Heuristic Equation after mission analysis to unpack and answer the two questions “what do I want them to do (exactly)” and “how are *we* going to make them do it”. It’s about applying the right pressure in the right context to the right place at the right time.

Most think if we want people to stop using a bridge (for example), we’d use communication to convince a population that the other bridge is safer. Or that this one is haunted. Or all the popular kids use the other bridge. Or whatever. But after analyzing the mission, a good Black Knight might recommend simply blowing the damned thing up.
I mean, mother tongues are a thing. Romance languages have Latin and the Americas have Uto-Aztecan, but I digress.

Can we build more bridges instead or give people the ability to fly over? Like the joke about the sunk Russian subs whose nuclear reactors are under the sea, 'the solution to pollution is dilution".

In your bridge example, what’s to say that the other bridge isn’t safer and that all the cool kids use it, because the other one was blown up and is now haunted?
This. If there is only one game in town then people aren't really free to move about.
 

BK2004

BK2004
Verified SOF
Joined
Nov 3, 2020
Messages
39
In your bridge example, what’s to say that the other bridge isn’t safer and that all the cool kids use it, because the other one was blown up and is now haunted?
Because if that were the case, we wouldn’t have had to do a thing in the first place
 

BK2004

BK2004
Verified SOF
Joined
Nov 3, 2020
Messages
39
I mean, mother tongues are a thing. Romance languages have Latin and the Americas have Uto-Aztecan, but I digress.

Can we build more bridges instead or give people the ability to fly over? Like the joke about the sunk Russian subs whose nuclear reactors are under the sea, 'the solution to pollution is dilution".


This. If there is only one game in town then people aren't really free to move about.
I’m starting to think you guys are missing my point lol
 

R.Caerbannog

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
1,537
I’m starting to think you guys are missing my point lol
Can you reiterate? I'm an ex grunt. Words difficult for me. Bridge analogy sounded much like forcing people to think certain way. That sound bad for caveman. ;-)

(Add on: If the point is trying to get rid of a certain technology, I think were too far gone for that.)
 
Last edited:

BK2004

BK2004
Verified SOF
Joined
Nov 3, 2020
Messages
39
I mean, mother tongues are a thing. Romance languages have Latin and the Americas have Uto-Aztecan, but I digress.

Can we build more bridges instead or give people the ability to fly over? Like the joke about the sunk Russian subs whose nuclear reactors are under the sea, 'the solution to pollution is dilution".


This. If there is only one game in town then people aren't really free to move about.
Can you reiterate? I'm an ex grunt. Words difficult for me. Bridge analogy sounded much like forcing people to think certain way. That sound bad for caveman. ;-)

(Add on: If the point is trying to get rid of a certain technology, I think were too far gone for that.)
You’re overthinking it. The bridge isn’t an analogy. It’s literal. Say, you’re doing UW (IW, now, I guess), training Gs at a place near a bridge. Only place you could hide, let’s say. Population has to cross the river to get to work/market/dice games, whatever. If they see you training G’s, they tell The Man, and the jig is up. We all die screaming. You can a) convince them to use another bridge or b) just get rid of that one.

It’s about using Lewin’s Heuristic Equation to think about behavioral change methodologies. In my line of work, we don’t use information as synonymous with communication. Information is what it is in a target’s environment that informs their behavior. You define the binary behavior you want to force and then you decide what pressures to place in the environment to make those behaviors happen.

Technology is just a tool to that end. Without the thorough understanding of behavior and environment with human factors analysis, you're playing darts in the dark, no matter how kickass your toys are.
 

R.Caerbannog

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
1,537
You’re overthinking it. The bridge isn’t an analogy. It’s literal. Say, you’re doing UW (IW, now, I guess), training Gs at a place near a bridge. Only place you could hide, let’s say. Population has to cross the river to get to work/market/dice games, whatever. If they see you training G’s, they tell The Man, and the jig is up. We all die screaming. You can a) convince them to use another bridge or b) just get rid of that one.

It’s about using Lewin’s Heuristic Equation to think about behavioral change methodologies. In my line of work, we don’t use information as synonymous with communication. Information is what it is in a target’s environment that informs their behavior. You define the binary behavior you want to force and then you decide what pressures to place in the environment to make those behaviors happen.

Technology is just a tool to that end. Without the thorough understanding of behavior and environment with human factors analysis, you're playing darts in the dark, no matter how kickass your toys are.
Ah... see I was of thinking that the bridge was a metaphor for mass communication technologies, like the internet, that have changed the way warfare is waged. Cause if you don't want your populace targeted/damaged by outside forces, you either limit their access to information, or limit an enemies access to your citizens. An example of the above would be China's Great Firewall or the proliferation of enemy social influencing tools, like TicToc.

If we're talking about a literal bridge... maybe blowing it up wouldn't be bad option. That said, anytime you change an environment there will be secondary and tertiary effects that may lead people doing the opposite of what you want, possibly causing you to all die screaming or maybe even quietly. Humans can be funny like that.

Regarding Lewin's Heuristic Equation: B = f (P,E) ; I dunno. I think trying to quantify and model human behavior based on environmental factors is kind of a tall order. I am a bit of a tard and my past focus was mainly on culture, resources use, and technology, so take what I say with a grain of sand. It just seems like there are a myriad of factors that may or may not play out. You also won't know how things play out until you pull the trigger. With the advent of mass communication and PYSOPS being allowed free reign on the American people, I'm a bit worried. Cause essentially you'll have instant output via input.

As for technology being a tool, I think we view technology differently. I'm not talking about toys, software, etc, but the processes behind it. I'm looking at technology like mankind's use of fire, metal, and math, in how it allows people to be able to dominate their environment and sadly each other. In the age of the internet, we are seeing titanic shifts in culture and thought happen at breakneck speed. How much of it is good or bad I can't say, I just wanna live peacefully.
 
Top