Military thought experiment Part 1

The game: Gain control of a large society by using a small number of military operatives.

Let’s use clandestine military operatives numbering .0001 percent of the targeted society.

100 million times .0001 = 10,000.

So 10,000 clandestine military operatives will play this game to win against a society with a population of 100 million.

The clandestine force can achieve its goal by:

  • infiltrating and blending into the large society
  • distributing 10,000 clandestine operatives widely across the society
  • this may take several generations
  • once in place, operatives identify natural leaders inside the host society
  • then they attack those natural leaders in such a way that they become poor leaders
  • this is better than killing them because they are rendered ineffective while their weaknesses demoralize others in the community
  • this method of attack is unlikely to be detected by law enforcement
  • they must be attacked in ways that are not easily discoverable, including socially, financially, reputationally, through bad grades, misdirection, poison, and so on
  • it is best to begin attacking natural leaders while they are young and continue as long as effective, even for many decades
  • this tactic is greatly facilitated by hostile operatives being born and raised in the large society
  • at the same time operatives work to help those who favor their cause(s) or position(s)
  • this might include harming the competitors of those people being favored
  • within 20-30 years, social disorganization will be noticeable due to the large number of disabled natural leaders
  • within 50 years social disorganization will be obvious
  • during the same time-frame, people favored by the hostile operatives will gain positions of power
  • soon, the larger society will succumb to the hostile takeover and a small number of military operatives will have won against a much larger society

The cost is minimal and the methods are almost undetectable. Once achieved, the goal can be proclaimed a victory by those who gained it.

While the goal is being pursued, operatives will discover ways to extract resources from the host society, thus paying their own way without funding from abroad.

Part 2

Part 3

____________________

first posted April 6, 2017

Psychophysics gains a new law of sensory perception that also sheds light on subjective perception

First we have to understand Weber’s Law:

Weber’s Law… says that the size of [a] just noticeable difference is a constant proportion of the original stimulus value. (Weber’s Law of Just Noticeable Differences)

Hang in with this, it’s interesting.

About 200 years ago, the German physician Ernst Heinrich Weber made a seemingly innocuous observation which led to the birth of the discipline of Psychophysics – the science relating physical stimuli in the world and the sensations they evoke in the mind of a subject. Weber asked subjects to say which of two slightly different weights was heavier. From these experiments , he discovered that the probability that a subject will make the right choice only depends on the ratio between the weights.

For instance, if a subject is correct 75% of the time when comparing a weight of 1 Kg and a weight of 1.1 Kg, then she will also be correct 75% of the time when comparing two weights of 2 and 2.2 Kg – or, in general, any pair of weights where one is 10% heavier than the other. This simple but precise rule opened the door to the quantification of behavior in terms of mathematical ‘laws’. (NEUROSCIENTISTS MAKE MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH IN 200-YEAR-OLD PUZZLE)

What’s new today is Time–Intensity Equivalence in Discrimination (TIED):

We investigated Weber’s law by training rats to discriminate the relative intensity of sounds at the two ears at various absolute levels. These experiments revealed the existence of a psychophysical regularity, which we term time–intensity equivalence in discrimination (TIED), describing how reaction times change as a function of absolute level. (The mechanistic foundation of Weber’s law)

Simply stated TIED says that the intensity of the stimulus determines the time it takes to “just notice” a change in it and that that scales linearaly as intensity changes up or down. For example, changes in louder sounds are noticed quicker than proportionally equal changes in quieter sounds and this can be scaled mathematically.

TIED is a new theory and needs more research, but whether it works out perfectly or not, I think it shows something very important about our individual and shared subjective perceptions of words, gestures, meanings, intentions, implications, and so on including all semiotics.

At present, we do not have machines that can measure our subjective perceptions, but we can surely feel them. And with training, we can also decently calibrate them.

Most of us can already vaguely talk about our subjective perceptions of each other, but few of us know how to do that with the precision of Weber’s Law or TIED. This is because we are all unique and we all react uniquely to each other. On top of that, few are able to employ language efficiently enough to capture significant detail when describing subjective responses or impressions.

FIML provides a very useful method for isolating and calibrating individual, idiosyncratic subjective perceptions.

Consistent, repeated use of FIML gradually recalibrates and reorganizes the entire psychologies of both partners.

FIML has virtually no content.. FIML is a method, and as such it allows partners to gradually identify, isolate, measure, and reorganize their entire body of psychological data, however they construe it.

Neurosis as a semiotic phobia

Human beings are semiotic entities. We largely live in and react emotionally to semiotics. Virtually everything we think, feel, and believe is built on a foundation of signs and symbols—semiotics.

A recent German study elegantly shows that people with arachnophobia see spiders more quickly than people who do not fear spiders.

The study can be found here: You See What You Fear: Spiders Gain Preferential Access to Conscious Perception in Spider-Phobic Patients. An article about the study is here: Phobias alter perception, German researchers say.

The authors of the study say that there probably is “an evolutionary advantage to preferentially process threatening stimuli, but these effects seem to have become dysfunctional in phobic patients.”

I would argue that “these effects” have also migrated into human semiotics and are similarly dysfunctional. That is, humans perceive some signs and symbols as more threatening than they are. For some of us these signs and symbols can seem so threatening we become “phobic” or neurotic about them.

For example, insecure people may become hypersensitive to signs of rejection. People who have been abused or tortured may perceive signs that seem ordinary to others as serious threats. If the person who tortures you also smiles, you will probably see human smiles as being dangerous when to others they indicate kindness.

Once a semiotic becomes associated with strong emotions, and this can happen in many ways, we will tend to see that semiotic as an emotionally charged sign from then on.

FIML practice is designed to interrupt our emotionally-charged responses to semiotics the moment those responses occur. By doing this repeatedly with the same sign, FIML practice can extirpates the neurotic response to that sign.

_________________

Edit: Extirpating semiotic “phobias” or neuroses should be easier to do in most cases than extirpating phobias based on visual perceptions of things, such as the spiders discussed in the linked study. This is likely due to the more direct connection between emotional or limbic responses and the visual cortex. Complex semiotics are signs and symbols built on top of other signs and symbols, and thus their “architecture” is more fragile than direct visual perception and probably simpler to change in most cases. Human facial expressions probably fall somewhere between complex signs and direct visual perception. A good deal of what we call “psychology” are networks of complex semiotics. When a network becomes “neurotic” it is probably true that it contains erroneous interpretations of some or all of its components. That said, a complex neurosis that involves many semiotic networks may be more difficult to extirpate than a straightforward phobia like arachnophobia.

__________________

First posted 01/09/14

What happened with Imran Awan? How does the DC Swamp really operate?

This is a terrific interview. Real investigative reporting. Rosiak details how corruption in DC transcends party lines. If you wonder what happened to Imran Awan and why his story disappeared without major ramifications, this is the answer.

I hope we Americans can begin reaching across the many issues that divide us so deeply. It is both ironic and very fitting that corruption in both parties may be the best way to accomplish that.

There are some good people in this story, but corruption has prevailed so far.

Today’s world turns on “democratized information” more than ever before in human history. This interview is 40 minutes of eye-opening info. Don’t miss it.