aphor · January 20, 2025 00:30
diff --git a/NCI_20_psy_manipulation.yaml b/NCI_20_psy_manipulation.yaml
 source: https://youtu.be/b3AN2wY4qAM
 reference: https://nci.university/opt-in-page-page?utm_source=youtube&utm_content=10070
 extract:
  description: 20 indicators of psychological manipulation
  content:
    - The Fate Model:
        Focus:
          - does it feel like everything points to the same thing (target fixation)?
          - is there unnatural (spam) repetition of messaging?
          - is there obvious or ambiguous reason why this particular focus now? 
        Authority:
          - are public figures advancing a new message?
          - are the authorities advancing a message outside their qualifications?
        Tribe:
          - does the messaging suggest social division (in/out group distinction)?
          - are oversimplified criteria suggested for judging good vs. bad guys or friends vs. enemies?
        Emotion:
          - are strong emotional reactions suggested by the messaging?
          - does the emotional suggestion lack clear attribution of facts and evidence about who feels what?
      Summary: directed manipulation of cognitive decision apparatus, exploitation of cognitive bias
      Diagnostic: scalar mean of booleans
    - The Novelty Effect:
        Is it real?:
          - fabrication?
          - overblown/coincidental?
        Is it new?:
          - old news presented as current?
          - old news rehashed as something new?
          - is relevance tightly bound with a completely different issue (focus manipulation)?
        Summary: Squirrel! Humans are evolved to favor attention to novelty, as threat avoidance or opportunity investigation which can be used for focus or distraction or overwhelming
        Diagnostic: logical or
    - Lacks Multiple Corroborating Sources:
    	Is the same narrative from multiple sources really independent?:
    	  - Do all the key details seem to spontaneously agree, tick all the same boxes?
    	  - Are multiple sources reporting the same information at the same time (group-speak --> group-think)?
        Summary: suppression or exclusion of different perspectives is misleading, as is pushing a message through multiple channels
        Diagnostic: Do multiple sources share the same voice and lack nuance of natural discovery, different perspectives, timing?
    - Makes use of cognitive dissonance bias:
        Cognitive Dissonance bias:
          - manipulated messaging clashes with existing beliefs
          - use of psychological need for internal consistency or social conformity exploited
          - candy-coated supporting messaging conflicts with identity/beliefs erodes identity
          - demand for multiple micro-agreements (internalized commitments) over time progressively conceding the existing beliefs/identity (brainwashing)
    	Summary: perspective shaping using micro-agreements prime people to erode beliefs/identity, accept a misleading message
    	Diagnostic: Is there a progressive attempt to (brainwash) undermine/switch audience identity by associations?
    - Emotional Scripting (implied false urgency):
    	Loss Aversion (cognitive bias): food scarcity messaging triggers irrational panic buying, for example.
    	Social Rejection: Threats of being ostracized by social groups.
    	Threat Avoidance: norms or group or way of life vaguely threatened.
    	Summary: Certain evolved emotional triggers can be used to short-circuit critical thinking and force irrational behaviors, based on fantasy not justified by facts or likelihood.
    	Diagnostic: sum of booleans
    - Money:
        Summary: If it seems too good to be true (for anyone), it probably is.
        Diagnostic: cui bono? Is there a clear beneficiary, proportional to the scale of the manipulation?
    - Context Boundaries:
    	Exaggeration: severity is overblown to justify disproportionate response
    	Contradiction: new norms are suggested to overcome normative or moral resistance
        Summary: manipulation which shifts context in order to normalize the unacceptable
        Diagnostic: sum of booleans
    - Archetypes:
    	Good guys: Characters presented nominally as heroes, or protagonists, or victims, prejudicially
    	Bad guys: Characters presented nominally as villains, or antagonists, prejudicially
    	Weirdos: Characterization to prejudice against audience identification
    	Summary: Archetypes are used to oversimplify controversy, to leverage prejudice and manipulate identification with characters.
    	Diagnostic: Do you already know how this story is supposed to end, who to blame or venerate? Is the narrative designed to wave off attention to detail/nuance?
    - Framing:
    	Expectation: clear belief or imperative indicated as an expectation
    	Belief: based on assumptions about your existing beliefs/fears/biases
    	Perception: protects a foregone conclusion by indicating what can and cannot be related
    	Definition: an assertion is explicitly presented as a foregone conclusion
    	Information Suppression: If someone needs to be silenced to protect an idea the proposal is manipulation
        Summary: Explicit establishment of a redefined context to predicate a particular judgement, often to exclude opposing information.
        Diagnostic: Is a method for evaluating the asserted message framed in order to predispose a foregone conclusion?
    - Rapid Compliance Shifting (social urgency):
        Progressive suggestability: Accepting a suggestion makes a person more accepting to further suggestion (hypnosis).
    	The Wave: Like when people in sports venues stand up and sit down together, propagating social conformity.
    	Summary: Engaging groupthink by suggesting urgent public acts of compliance, as a foot-in-the-door for subsequent suggestion.
    	Diagnostic: Is there a progression of suggestions urging to go along with a trend?
    - Convenient timing of events:
    	Summary: Coincidental support for a suggestion, or distraction from other information with unexplainable synchronicity.
    	Diagnostic: Is the timing of different messaging unlikely coincidence?
    - Logical Fallacy:
    	non-exhaustive list:
    	  - Appeal to Emotion
    	  - Straw man
    	  - Bandwagon Fallacy
    	  - False Dilemma
    	  - Ad Hominem
    	  - Appeal to Authority
    	  - Slippery Slope
    	  - Hasty Generalization
    	  - Red Herring
    	  - False Equivalence
    	Summary: manipulation explicitly uses logical fallacies to support a false inference
    	Diagnostic: sum of logical fallacies used to support a message
	source: https://youtu.be/b3AN2wY4qAM
	reference: https://nci.university/opt-in-page-page?utm_source=youtube&utm_content=10070
	extract:
	description: 20 indicators of psychological manipulation
	content:
	- The Fate Model:
	Focus:
	- does it feel like everything points to the same thing (target fixation)?
	- is there unnatural (spam) repetition of messaging?
	- is there obvious or ambiguous reason why this particular focus now?
	Authority:
	- are public figures advancing a new message?
	- are the authorities advancing a message outside their qualifications?
	Tribe:
	- does the messaging suggest social division (in/out group distinction)?
	- are oversimplified criteria suggested for judging good vs. bad guys or friends vs. enemies?
	Emotion:
	- are strong emotional reactions suggested by the messaging?
	- does the emotional suggestion lack clear attribution of facts and evidence about who feels what?
	Summary: directed manipulation of cognitive decision apparatus, exploitation of cognitive bias
	Diagnostic: scalar mean of booleans
	- The Novelty Effect:
	Is it real?:
	- fabrication?
	- overblown/coincidental?
	Is it new?:
	- old news presented as current?
	- old news rehashed as something new?
	- is relevance tightly bound with a completely different issue (focus manipulation)?
	Summary: Squirrel! Humans are evolved to favor attention to novelty, as threat avoidance or opportunity investigation which can be used for focus or distraction or overwhelming
	Diagnostic: logical or
	- Lacks Multiple Corroborating Sources:
	Is the same narrative from multiple sources really independent?:
	- Do all the key details seem to spontaneously agree, tick all the same boxes?
	- Are multiple sources reporting the same information at the same time (group-speak --> group-think)?
	Summary: suppression or exclusion of different perspectives is misleading, as is pushing a message through multiple channels
	Diagnostic: Do multiple sources share the same voice and lack nuance of natural discovery, different perspectives, timing?
	- Makes use of cognitive dissonance bias:
	Cognitive Dissonance bias:
	- manipulated messaging clashes with existing beliefs
	- use of psychological need for internal consistency or social conformity exploited
	- candy-coated supporting messaging conflicts with identity/beliefs erodes identity
	- demand for multiple micro-agreements (internalized commitments) over time progressively conceding the existing beliefs/identity (brainwashing)
	Summary: perspective shaping using micro-agreements prime people to erode beliefs/identity, accept a misleading message
	Diagnostic: Is there a progressive attempt to (brainwash) undermine/switch audience identity by associations?
	- Emotional Scripting (implied false urgency):
	Loss Aversion (cognitive bias): food scarcity messaging triggers irrational panic buying, for example.
	Social Rejection: Threats of being ostracized by social groups.
	Threat Avoidance: norms or group or way of life vaguely threatened.
	Summary: Certain evolved emotional triggers can be used to short-circuit critical thinking and force irrational behaviors, based on fantasy not justified by facts or likelihood.
	Diagnostic: sum of booleans
	- Money:
	Summary: If it seems too good to be true (for anyone), it probably is.
	Diagnostic: cui bono? Is there a clear beneficiary, proportional to the scale of the manipulation?
	- Context Boundaries:
	Exaggeration: severity is overblown to justify disproportionate response
	Contradiction: new norms are suggested to overcome normative or moral resistance
	Summary: manipulation which shifts context in order to normalize the unacceptable
	Diagnostic: sum of booleans
	- Archetypes:
	Good guys: Characters presented nominally as heroes, or protagonists, or victims, prejudicially
	Bad guys: Characters presented nominally as villains, or antagonists, prejudicially
	Weirdos: Characterization to prejudice against audience identification
	Summary: Archetypes are used to oversimplify controversy, to leverage prejudice and manipulate identification with characters.
	Diagnostic: Do you already know how this story is supposed to end, who to blame or venerate? Is the narrative designed to wave off attention to detail/nuance?
	- Framing:
	Expectation: clear belief or imperative indicated as an expectation
	Belief: based on assumptions about your existing beliefs/fears/biases
	Perception: protects a foregone conclusion by indicating what can and cannot be related
	Definition: an assertion is explicitly presented as a foregone conclusion
	Information Suppression: If someone needs to be silenced to protect an idea the proposal is manipulation
	Summary: Explicit establishment of a redefined context to predicate a particular judgement, often to exclude opposing information.
	Diagnostic: Is a method for evaluating the asserted message framed in order to predispose a foregone conclusion?
	- Rapid Compliance Shifting (social urgency):
	Progressive suggestability: Accepting a suggestion makes a person more accepting to further suggestion (hypnosis).
	The Wave: Like when people in sports venues stand up and sit down together, propagating social conformity.
	Summary: Engaging groupthink by suggesting urgent public acts of compliance, as a foot-in-the-door for subsequent suggestion.
	Diagnostic: Is there a progression of suggestions urging to go along with a trend?
	- Convenient timing of events:
	Summary: Coincidental support for a suggestion, or distraction from other information with unexplainable synchronicity.
	Diagnostic: Is the timing of different messaging unlikely coincidence?
	- Logical Fallacy:
	non-exhaustive list:
	- Appeal to Emotion
	- Straw man
	- Bandwagon Fallacy
	- False Dilemma
	- Ad Hominem
	- Appeal to Authority
	- Slippery Slope
	- Hasty Generalization
	- Red Herring
	- False Equivalence
	Summary: manipulation explicitly uses logical fallacies to support a false inference
	Diagnostic: sum of logical fallacies used to support a message