(The COGNITIVE SYSTEM derives self-confidence from the knowledge in the
self-image (see 8.8.5. SELF-IMAGE in LTM), & K attributes such as reliability & trust.)
| -
| -
| -
| | 1.1.4.A
| -
| -
| Make target distrust own capabilities, information, or solution.
| -
|
| 1.1.4.A..a.aa
| -
| -
| which target prefers.
| -
|
| 1.1.4.A.a
| -
| -
| Provide an (alternative) explanation.
| -
|
| 1.1.4.A.b
| -
| -
| Feed recognizably false info into sensors or sensor buffers.
| -
|
| 1.1.4.B
| -
| -
| Encourage unwarranted trust in target's capabilities.
| -
|
| 1.1.4.B.a
| -
| -
|
Continue to emit obsolete data to encourage target's continued
use of obsolete info processing methods (see also 6.MSS.5.2.D.c.).
|
If it is known that a particular code or channel is being
read by the enemy then, even after a new communication method is established, deceptive
messages may continue to be sent by the old method to feed false info to the enemy
and to keep the enemy from looking for the new method.
|
| 1.1.4.B.b
| -
| -
|
Capitalize on ignorance of true sensor sensitivity especially
under special circumstances.
|
target may believe he can detect a faint object beyond a bright
light when in fact he can not because the sensitivity of his eyes adjusts to the
light instead of to the object beyond it.
|
| 1.1.A
| -
| -
| Brainwashing techniques include:
| -
|
| 1.1.A.a
| -
| -
| fatigue; sleep, food, water deprivation.
| -
|
| 1.1.A.b
| -
| -
| repetitive stimuli.
| -
|
| 1.1.A.c
| -
| -
|
rhythmic stimuli such as photic driving at natural brain wave
frequencies to produce seizures in epileptics.
| -
|
| 1.1.A.d
| -
| -
| forceful stimuli.
| -
|
| 1.1.A.e
| -
| -
| sensory deprivation; reduced stimulation.
| -
|
| 1.1.A.f
| -
| -
| unpredictable environment.
| -
|
| 1.1.A.g
| -
| -
|
unpredictable attitudes of brainwashers (e.g., from conciliatory
to brutal).
| -
|
| 1.1.A.h
| -
| -
| unpredictable punishment.
| -
|
| 1.1.A.i
| -
| -
| isolation.
| -
|
| 1.1.A.j
| -
| -
| indoctrination lectures, lies, persuasion.
| -
|
| 1.1.A.k
| -
| -
| threats; fear; simulate punishment of others.
| -
|
| 1.1.A.l
| -
| -
| disorientation.
| -
|
| 1.1.A.note
| -
| -
|
NOTE: Make target susceptible to 'brainwashing' by emotional
deprivation or high states of emotion (e.g., anger & fear) as may be produced by
excessive leniency or excessive punishment, especially when used alternately.
| -
|
| 1.1.B
| -
| -
|
Techniques for producing hallucinations (e.g., confusion of reality
and fantasy) include:
|
Joshua Slocum, 1900, on a solo South Atlantic crossing, hallucinated
that somone else steered the ship for him ('Savior' hallucination).
|
| 1.1.B.a
| -
| -
| confine (physically; by threats; by commands).
| -
|
| 1.1.B.b
| -
| -
| remove from environment--(prolonged) isolation.
| -
|
| 1.1.B.c
| -
| -
| sensory habituation; monotonous stimuli (e.g., noises).
| -
|
| 1.1.B.d
| -
| -
| (prolonged) uncertainty of outcome (e.g., life raft experience).
| -
|
| 1.1.B.e
| -
| -
| physiological damage; deprivation.
| -
|
| 1.1.C
| -
| -
|
Hypnosis can be used to induce sensor & affector hallucinations,
make memory modifications, control attention, and control EXEC processes such as
decision and judgement.
| -
|
| 1.1.D
| -
| -
| Drugs and Chemicals.
| -
|
| 1.1.E
| -
| -
|
Electro-stimulation of the brain to produce artificial sensations,
emotions, epileptic seizures, etc.
| -
|
| 1.1.F
| -
| -
|
Physical changes. Temperature (e.g., heat exhaustion to produce
disorientation); Movement (e.g., inner ear / visual disparity; spinning to cause dizziness;
ship motion to cause seasickness).
| -
|
| 1.3
|
HIGH-LEVEL THINKING PROCESSES (Understanding, Inference, Judgement,
& Decision). (See list of processes in 1.6. EXEC PROCESSES & procedures in 4.4. ANALYTICAL
PROCEDURES.)
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.3.1
| Control & Autonomy.
| Intellectual maturity; capacity for independent thought
| -
| -
|
| 1.3.1.1
| Independence of thinking processes (See also 2.3.1.2.2. & 4.4.1.2.2.2.2.2.).
| -
| Induce / strengthen reliance on other's decisions.
| -
|
| 1.3.1.1.a
| -
| -
| Discourage skepticism & independent thought.
|
Captors reindoctrinate new POWs with the help of experienced
POWs who are already partially reindoctrinated, and who now 'know more than the new
POWs' and can use this claim and peer pressure in converting the new POWs to the
captors' viewpoints.
|
| 1.3.1.1.b
| -
| -
| Encourage dependence and unquestioning info acceptance.
|
Cult organizations isolate members from the outside world
and discourage free thought, particularly negative thoughts about the cult. target
encourage unquestioning belief of and obedience to cult leaders.
|
| 1.3.1.1.b.aa
| -
| -
| Appeal to ignorance ('You don't know, so believe me').
|
Captors reindoctrinate new POWs with the help of experienced
POWs who are already partially reindoctrinated, and who now 'know more than the new
POWs' and can use this claim and peer pressure in converting the new POWs to the
captors' viewpoints.
|
| 1.3.1.1.b.bb
| -
| -
|
We, in authority position, give target faulty advice which
makes target still more in need of or dependent on our advice.
| -
|
| 1.3.1.1.c
| -
| -
|
Utilize herd instinct; peer pressure; fads; popular ideas
(Logical Fallacy 24 part b). (Susceptibility affected by excitement; physiological / chemical
changes such as adrenalin flow; motivational speeches; humor--it spreads.)
| -
|
| 1.3.1.1.d
| -
| -
|
Create an imaginary new entity so target's only source information
on it is from us.
|
Snipe hunt. The victim is invited to 'join' a hunt for a
(nonexistent) bird or animal. His role is to wait very quietly and patiently in
the brush with a bag and catch it when it is flushed out by the others. The victim
ends up alone in a dark or spooky place.
|
| 1.3.1.2
| Perceived amount of control.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.3.1.2.A
| -
| -
| Make target believe he is in control:
| -
|
| 1.3.1.2.A.a
| -
| -
|
that target has a plan that will accomplish his objective
and can carry or is carrying it out. Play along with target's deception.
| -
|
| 1.3.1.2.A.b
| -
| -
|
that target is obtaining information through his own efforts,
and independently of our wishes.
| -
|
| 1.3.1.2.A.c
| -
| -
|
that target is responsible for initiating the contact or
event.
| -
|
| 1.3.1.2.A.d
| -
| -
|
that events, especially target's losses, are due to his own
actions.
| -
|
| 1.3.1.2.A.e
| -
| -
|
that target has the advantage of practice, which in fact
serves as a control condition for correctly interpreting his later actions.
|
Questions given in advance of a lie detector test serve
to calibrate the subject's responses, rather than to help beat the test as the subject
may believe.
|
| 1.3.1.2.A.f
| -
| -
|
that target, rather than someone else, has set the conditions
for the 'test'.
| -
|
| 1.3.1.2.B
| -
| -
| Make target think he is 'in on' the plan.
| -
|
| 1.3.1.2.B.a
| -
| -
|
Multiple targets, 'in on the plan' and cooperating, none
of whom knows the deeper deception in which the plan is nested.
| -
|
| 1.3.2
| Belief formation & employment processes
| Criteria for belief
| -
| -
|
| 1.3.2.1
| Expectation (result of prediction).
| -
|
Induce / utilize belief which itself can produce the desired / expected
effect (e.g., physiological effect; psychological effect; self-fulfilling prophesy;
placebos).
|
The reduction of pain by a placebo. The creation of a false
high by a nonhallucinogenic substance. In an experiment, a person expecting to be
touched by hot metal developed a blister when touched by ice. An influential analyst's
stock-market prediction is fulfilled when many investors act to take advantage of
it.
|
| 1.3.2.2
|
Receptivity to info; belief criteria (skepticism & gullibility
(involved in making 8.8. World Image & current situation image).
| Tendency to suspect deception
| -
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.A
| -
| -
|
Induce or capitalize on suspicions or conclusions caused
by (false) allegations ('Where there's smoke, there's fire') (Logical Fallacy 28.).
|
Political candidates are sometimes indicted (on false or
exaggerated charges) immediately before an election to sway public opinion.
|
| 1.3.2.2.B
| -
| -
|
Alter target's receptivity to information or a concept by changing
his emotional state / mood (see 1.1.3. & 4.4.1.3.2.1.) through employment of humor,
ridicule, flattery, etc. (Logical Fallacy 38).
|
The degree to which one is intimidated and influenced by
belief in fortune telling, witches, ghosts, psychic phenomena, etc., may be reduced
by treating these subjects with humor or ridicule.
|
| 1.3.2.2.C
| -
| -
|
Induce / strengthen target's belief in something by virtue of
target's involvement in it (see 1.1.1.5.4.).
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.D
| -
| -
|
Induce target to increase his receptivity to information (suspend
his skepticism) by withholding information from him, thereby creating an 'appetite'
for information.
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.E
| -
| -
|
Induce target to accept an excuse (e.g. for a failure, an experiment
failure, or for cheating) by inventing a characteristic which requires the behavior.
(See also 4.4.1.1.2.2.A. Logical Fallacy 30, 'The Good Reason').
|
Psychics' excuses for failure: 'No genuine psychic can regularly
produce phenomena upon demand' (the shyness effect--a phenomenon is adversely affected
by the presence of distrust, e.g., experimental controls or the presence of careful
observers, especially disbelievers or skeptical evaluators). Psychics' explanations
cheating: 'Psychics are compulsory cheaters and should be forgiven when caught';
'Psychics cheat some of the time because target don't want to disappoint the audience
when target fail'; Consequently, a psychic must be assumed genuine unless ALL of his
phenomena are proven fake. (Source: The Amazing Randi).
|
| 1.3.2.2.F
| -
| -
|
Utilize target's beliefs and assumptions about plausibility
(see also 4.4.1.1.2.1.):
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.F.a
| -
| -
|
Keep deception story within bounds which target believes
to be plausible & a viable option for us.
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.F.a.aa
| -
| -
|
If target won't believe a truth which we want target to
believe (e.g., because it is astounding or unacceptable), then distort the truth
to be within plausible bounds.
|
In Poul Anderson's 'When Half-Gods Go,' aliens from
space have such unbelievably good things to offer humanity that target must substantially
reduce their claims to be believed.
|
| 1.3.2.2.F.b
| -
| -
|
Make target's concept of our plan implausible, or select
plan which target considers implausible:
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.F.b.aa
| -
| -
|
No possible means to goal; therefore either we have
a different goal or we will fail (note: the goal may be obtaining particular information).
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.F.b.bb
| -
| -
|
The particular means to goal is impossible; therefore
either we have a different goal, or we have a different means to the goal, or we will
fail.
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.F.b.cc
| -
| -
|
Required preparation is not worthwhile or reasonable
or probable.
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.F.c
| -
| -
| Capitalize on improbable, special / unique cases.
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.G
| -
| -
|
Induce or capitalize on SELF-PERPETUATION OF BELIEFS, particularly
prior or desired beliefs.
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.G.Note
| -
| -
|
Note: Rationality is a self-correcting system of discovery;
a rational attitude allows testing of beliefs. Rationalization consists of those
processes which make beliefs self-perpetuating regardless of the evidence.
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.G.a
| -
| -
|
Capitalize on target's strong tendency to believe what he
wants to believe (Logical Fallacy 31--wishful thinking). (See also 1.1.1. Motivated
behavior.)
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.G.b
| -
| -
|
Self-perpetuation of beliefs due to SUBJECTIVE VALIDATION,
in which only evidence supporting the belief is sought, noticed, or fully processed /
pursued. Non-supporting or contradictory evidence is not-noticed, ignored, interpreted
as supporting, or disregarded. Also see other 1.3.2.2.G. headings.
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.G.b.aa
| -
| -
|
Source selection. Selective seeking, exposure to, or
use of only those info sources which support current view (2.4.2. Info Selection).
(See also 8.1.9.3.).
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.G.b.bb
| -
| -
|
Information selection. Capitalize on target's tendency
to FAIL TO OBSERVE OR NOTICE, to ignore, or to suppress evidence which fails to support
or which contradicts his current view (see also Logical Fallacy 34; 2.4.2. Info Selection).
|
(INFO SELECTION) 'Mistories' (Marks & Kammen's term)
of popular authors Von Daeniken (Ancient Astronauts), Castaneda, Berlitz (Bermuda
Triangle) supply a barrage of information, but only that which supports the author's
hypothesis; target omit the rest.
|
| 1.3.2.2.G.b.cc
| -
| -
|
Information validation. Capitalize on target's failure
to question evidence (e.g., 'amazing results' of a psychic) which supports his current
view.
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.G.c
| -
| -
|
Induce / capitalize on target's tendency to interpret or MISINTERPRET
ALL EVIDENCE AS SUPPORTING or more favorable to one's preferred beliefs. Note:
A 'non-falsifiable' belief is one which any data likely to be obtained can be interpreted
to support.
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.G.d
| -
| -
|
Capitalize on target's tendency to deduce without consideration
of, or in spite of, the facts, especially on the basis of prior beliefs (Logical
Fallacy 34), or when lacking information.
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.G.d.aa
| -
| -
|
Induce / capitalize on target's tendency to disregard or
excuse contradictory evidence.
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.G.d.aa.aaa
| -
| -
|
e.g., to hypothesize 'if A then B', and then, when
B fails to occur, to conclude that A needs to be done better, rather than that the
hypothesis is false.
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.H
| -
| -
|
Capitalize on target's tendency to notice or concentrate on
EXPECTED stimuli, successes, meaningful stimuli, and matches; and to fail to notice
or ignore UNEXPECTED or 'non-' (meaningless) objects or events, such as a failure
to match.
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.H.a
| -
| -
|
Capitalize on target's tendency to notice those things to
which he has been alerted. (See also 0.B.b.aa. Expectation.)
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.H.a.aa
| -
| -
|
and to therefore subsequently perceive it as occuring
more frequently than before.
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.H.a.aa.aaa
| -
| -
|
'Illusionary correlation' is a type of subjective
validation in which expected matches are imagined to occur more often than target
really do.
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.H.b
| -
| -
|
Induce recognition of an incorrect pattern, e.g., by suggesting
a particular interpretation of data ('suggestion').
|
(EXPECTATION) 'suggestion.' The journal 'Science' once
reported an undercover evaluation of mental health facilities in which the actions
of the investigators, who were disguised as patients, were interpreted as part of
their psychoses by the doctors. These actions included, for example, their inquisitiveness
about the facility and their constant notetaking.
|
| 1.3.2.2.H.c
| -
| -
|
Induce / capitalize on target's tendency to accept the apparent
accuracy and specificity of matches between two descriptions or predictions, when
target in fact are due to underestimation of the size of sample sets and the principle
of EQUIVALENT ODDMATCHES rather than to any significant analytical or predictive
power.
|
(ODDMATCHES) Personality readings by psychics seem to fit
us because target are general enough to fit many people. Their accuracy seems beyond
the realm of chance; the psychic as well as the subject often being deceived in this
regard. Nostradamus wrote poems which seem prophetic because target are ambiguous
and capitalize on the principle of oddmatches. For any century, one can find an
event which matches each verse.
|
| 1.3.2.2.H.c.Note
| -
| -
|
ODDMATCHES: The subjective 'oddmatch' effect occurs
when the matching of one event, such as a dream, with another, such as a subsequent
happening, is perceived as unlikely (and perhaps paranormal) because of a failure
to realize the very large number of opportunities for matches. A person may greatly
underestimate the size of the sets of match candidates: (1) because he fails to
notice many match candidates which do not occur, but which could occur; and (2) because
he perceives what is actually a long-run situation (unlimited time) as a short-run
situation.
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.H.c.Note2
| -
| -
|
Thus, an 'oddmatch' situation is one with multiple
'hit' endpoints (see also 8.8.6.2.D. 'multiple outs'), and in which any of many possible
matches produces the desired outcome. The principle of equivalent oddmatches is
that any of these matches is as good as any other. People naturally mistake an 'oddmatch'
situation for a 'probability match' situation with a single 'hit' endpoint, for which
only one possible match produces the desired outcome. (Reference: Marks & Kammann##,
pages 24, 40, 158, 161, 166, 168). (See 4.4.3.5.2.).
| -
|
| 1.3.2.2.a
| -
| Experience being deceived
| -
| -
|
| 1.3.2.3
| Weighting of info.
| -
|
Inappropriate weighting of info (e.g., unequal weighting of
data when equal weighting is required.)
| -
|
| 1.3.3
| Simplification and Approximation.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.3.3.A
| -
| -
|
Oversimplification (Logical Fallacy 62). Prevent complete
understanding of a complex situation.
| -
|
| 1.3.3.B
| -
| -
|
Assume linearity for a nonlinear system (See 4.4.1.1.2.A.c.cc.
Unwarranted extrapolation of periodic function).
| -
|
| 1.3.A
| -
| -
|
Capitalize on inadequacies in target's conceptualization, comprehension,
& inferencing (e.g., conditional probabilities are difficult to comprehend).(see
4.4.2.).
| -
|
| 1.3.B
| -
| -
| Justification.
| -
|
| 1.3.B.a
| -
| -
|
Special pleading: applying a principle only in cases when it
supports a given (target's) view (Logical Fallacy 32).
| -
|
| 1.3.B.b
| -
| -
|
Special consideration: appeal to pity, extenuating circumstances
(Logical Fallacy 39).
| -
|
| 1.3.B.c
| -
| -
|
Fallacies: 'Point to another wrong': 'Every one else does it';
'two wrongs make a right' (Logical Fallacy 41).
| -
|
| 1.4
| HIGH-LEVEL GOAL PURSUIT ACTIVITIES.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.4.1
| Define Current Situation.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.4.1.1
| Observe & Compare Goals & Current State.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2
|
Assess resources & capabilities (requirements &availability;
refer to self-image).
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.1
| STATE K (features, templates, associations).
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2
|
PROCESS K (procedures, routines, preplanned responses (actions;
changed data base) for specified conditions).
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1
| General effectiveness of high-level decision processes.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.1
| Speed.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.1.A
| -
| -
| Induce a quick (hasty) decision:
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.1.A.a
| -
| -
|
Limit analysis time (desperation, urgency) (e.g.
to limit info sources, competition, etc.) (e.g., by manipulating payoff matrix as
function of time).
|
Often advertisements will state that the buyer has
only a very limited time to respond to the offer. Thus, the buyer must send in his
money before he has had time to judge if he really needs the product or if he can
get it at a better price.
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.1.A.b
| -
| -
| Arouse target's emotions.
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.1.A.c
| -
| -
|
Induce belief target has sufficient or all available
data.
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.1.A.c.aa
| -
| -
| fit target's preconceptions.
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.1.B
| -
| -
| Slow target's decision by introducing uncertainty:
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.1.B.a
| -
| -
| Make target consider possibility of deception.
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.1.B.b
| -
| -
| Use confusion or contradiction.
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.1.B.c
| -
| -
| Distort target's perception of progress towards a solution.
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.2
| Timing.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.3
| Reliability.
| Ability to detect deception
| -
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.3.a
| -
| Alert status
| -
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.4
| Criticality.
| -
| Conceal / disguise criticality of target's critical decisions.
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.A
| -
| -
|
Enhance target's indecision by making all alternatives
seem:
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.A.a
| -
| -
| equal.
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.A.b
| -
| -
| bad (Logical Fallacy 43).
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.B
| -
| -
| Hinder target's decision by limiting target's analysis resources.
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.B.a
| -
| -
|
Induce failure of target to examine all data before making
decision.
| -
|
| 1.4.1.2.2.1.B.c
| -
| -
| -
|
Many mazes are arranged so that, after leaving the
correct path near the start, one can proceed almost all the way to the goal before
a barrier defeats the attempt.
|
| 1.4.2
|
Generate Plan to Satisfy High-Level Goals (options, priorities,
initiate internal action).
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.4.2.1
| Generate & plan high-level options:
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.4.2.2
|
Determine assignment for delegation to manager. Select system
component (e.g., MANAGER) & processing strategy (e.g., 'K-USING & K-BUILDING Thinking
Modes'). (May delegate to CONTROLLER).
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.4.2.3
| Evaluate & prioritize high-level options. (Reasonableness check.)
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.4.3
|
Initiate Internal & External Action Processes to Satisfy High-Level
Goals.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.4.3.1
| Allocate required processing resources for assignment by CONTROLLER.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.4.3.3
| Delegate task to MANAGER, etc.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6
|
FUNDAMENTAL PROCESSES (& CATEGORIES thereof) (e.g., thinking processes
& inference tools employed in problem solving procedures used by MANAGER; Data-reduction
(chunking) to selected level of detail. Prediction, e.g., using context to produce
expectations).
| Comprehension, concept formation
|
Induce target to make a faulty GENERALIZATION (see also 4.4.3.5.
Logical and Intuitive reasoning & judgement):
| -
|
| 1.6.1
|
Establish, construct, synthesize, or refer to a STATE DESCRIPTION,
such as a situation image / picture, or a goal, initial, or current state. (See also
MANAGER 4.4.1.1.2.)
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.1.1
| Assumptions.
| -
|
Induce or capitalize on SELF-PERPETUATION OF BELIEFS, particularly
prior or desired beliefs.
| -
|
| 1.6.1.1.A
| -
| -
|
Induce / capitalize on plausible, but erroneous assumptions
which are used implicitly or automatically during organization and categorization
of (e.g., input) data (e.g., assumptions about the results of data handling processes
or transformations). (See also 4.4.1.1.2.1.).
| -
|
| 1.6.1.1.A.a
| -
| -
| Induce target to erroneously assume temporal or spacial continuity.
| -
|
| 1.6.1.2
| Hypotheses.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.1.3
| Perceived probability of deception.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.1.4
| Measures of confidence in achieving goal.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.1.5
| External monitoring (FEEDBACK input).
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.2
| COMPARE two state images (e.g., for goal & initial / current state).
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.3
| CONNECT states and processes.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.4
|
ASSOCIATE / CONNECT (High-level part of data input process; see
SENSORS & AFFECTORS for low- & mid-level processes): (This is a read process rather
than a write process.) Organization, sorting, categorizing of (input) data (data
reduction (chunking) to selected level of detail).
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.4.1
| Types of ASSOCIATIONS:
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.4.1.1
| Passive (e.g., characteristics).
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.4.1.2
| Causal / influential.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.4.1.2.A
| -
| -
|
Induce target to assume a cause due to spacial or temporal
(observe A & B, assume A causes B):
| -
|
| 1.6.4.1.2.A.a
| -
| -
|
proximity or sequence (Logical Fallacy 04. 'Assuming
the cause').
|
A person taking prescribed medication may assume he recovers
because of it, when in fact he may have recovered equally well without it.
|
| 1.6.4.1.2.A.b
| -
| -
| relation.
| -
|
| 1.6.4.1.2.A.c
| -
| -
| exclusion.
| -
|
| 1.6.4.1.2.A.d
| -
| -
|
(Logical Fallacy 07) correlation (e.g., covary normally
unrelated events).
| -
|
| 1.6.4.1.2.B
| -
| -
|
Faulty causal generalization (observe B, assume existence
of A--reverse of assuming the cause) (Logical Fallacy 05.).
| -
|
| 1.6.4.1.2.C
| -
| -
|
Faulty ultimate cause (mistake triggering event for ultimate
cause) (Logical Fallacy 06.).
| -
|
| 1.6.4.A
| -
| -
|
'Reification' or 'Hypostation'-- Making an abstract concept
into a substance (Logical Fallacy 15.). Personification-- Attributing human characteristics
(e.g., intent, motivation, emotion) to non-human creatures or objects (Logical Fallacy
35).
| -
|
| 1.6.4.B
| -
| -
|
Word Magic: because the word exists, the thing does (Logical
Fallacy 19). (E.g., the average person who has 2.3 children; fate).
| -
|
| 1.6.5
|
HIGH-LEVEL PATTERN RECOGNITION & INTERPRETATION. Recognition
& interpretation of patterns, using induction, deduction, relational patterns including
analogies, metaphors, logical relationships (at a high-level rather than at mid-level
as in the case of 6.7.MSS.5. PERCEIVE under SENSORS).
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.5.1
| Speed
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.5.2
| Accuracy (Classification, Identification)
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.5.2.A
| -
| -
|
Employ 'branding' or 'name-calling' to induce inaccurate
classification (e.g., capitalize on the 'Them vs Us' mentality by branding a third
party as the 'enemy').
| -
|
| 1.6.5.2.B
| -
| -
|
Induce or capitalize on target's tendency to be unable to see
alternative interpretations once the first one has been established (i.e., once a
'Gestalt' has been formed, or 'closure' has occured.) The initial impression is
crucial, since the system uses it as a basis for finding a pattern match.
| -
|
| 1.6.5.2.C
| -
| -
| Faulty set definition.
| -
|
| 1.6.5.2.C.a
| -
| -
|
Sampling: sample set not as implied); Sample from inappropriate
(nonrepresentative) subset (Logical Fallacy 02.).
| -
|
| 1.6.5.2.C.b
| -
| -
|
Non-exhaustive classification (classification does not
include all cases) (Logical Fallacy 13).
| -
|
| 1.6.5.2.C.c
| -
| -
|
Non-exclusive classification (classification does not uniquely
classify each case) (Logical Fallacy 14.)
| -
|
| 1.6.5.2.D
| -
| -
| Unnecessary vagueness (Logical Fallacy 17). (See also 4.4.1.1.2.A.c.aa.).
| -
|
| 1.6.5.2.E
| -
| -
|
Overprecision (specify more precision than is justified by
measurement or method) (Logical Fallacy 18). Unwarranted or unnecessary accuracy.
| -
|
| 1.6.5.2.E.a
| -
| -
|
Can't make any decision unless something is defined in
its entirety.
| -
|
| 1.6.5.2.E.b
| -
| -
| Demand precise definition of something which can't be defined.
| -
|
| 1.6.5.A
| -
| -
|
Simulate, substitute, or disguise to fit a known pattern (see
also 6.MSS.5.)
|
2.4.2.1.1.A. & D.b. 6.MSS.5.2.D.a. & D.c. 7.AA.5. An enterprising
individual replaced check deposit slips in the lobby of various bank branches with
his own. Regardless of what was written on them, the computer automatically deposited
customers' deposits to his account. Three weeks later, before the ceiling fell in,
he withdrew a newly deposited $250,000 and left the country.
|
| 1.6.5.B
| -
| -
|
Induce recognition of expected pattern by providing partial
info compatable with it; e.g., by providing pieces of an item, or by providing items
,personnel, events, or activities obviously associated with it. (The parts imply
the existence of the whole).
| -
|
| 1.6.5.B.a
| -
| -
|
(Also: recognition of a stimulus may be supressed bythe use
of incongruent stimulus, e.g., by dominance of one member of a set over others.)
|
When a red six-of-spades is briefly presented to subjects
in a psychological experiment, it is seen either as a black spade, a red heart, or,
by some subjects, as a red spade.
|
| 1.6.5.C
| -
| -
|
Induce finding of non-significant pattern post-hoc so target
wastes future resources searching for it, or is unjustifiably confident he knows
situation.
|
In experiments which test individuals for ESP using the guessing
of unknown cards, a few individuals may, by chance, perform much worse than chance.
On observing this, a researcher may decide to perform statistical tests on these
same data to determine whether the individual is 'anti-psychic': i.e. has psychic
ability which leads him to tend to guess the wrong cards. Such a statistical test
is meaningless because: 1) the experiment was originally intended to test a different
hypothesis, i.e., to to test for better than normal 'guessing' ability, 2) the data
were selected to provide a biased sample from only selected 'anti-psychic' subjects,
and 3) the test for 'anti-psychic' abilities was prescribed after the fact, and because
it was particularly well-suited to the patterns which occurred by chance in that
particular data set. Since one could probably find some hypothesis to fit any data
set generated, the analysis result is statistically meaningless.
|
| 1.6.5.D
| -
| -
| Fit pattern target expects and / or seeks to achieve goal.
| -
|
| 1.6.5.E
| -
| -
| Make pattern unrecognizable by restructuring input data.
|
A Southern California door-to-door magazine sales group, the
'Clearing And Subscription House,' offered a wide selection at excellent prices.
target had checks made out using their acronym: CASH, which their customers failed
to recognize as a meaningful word. Arrests were made early in 1985.
|
| 1.6.5.E.a
| -
| -
| Provide incorrect segmentation.
|
An artifact was inscribed 'Toti e hors esto'. What was it
used for? Ans: To tie horses to.
|
| 1.6.5.F
| -
| -
|
Capitalize on the ambiguity of stimuli with multiple interpretations
by providing suitable context; E.g., visual illusions such as figure-ground reversal;
pictures with two or more visual interpretations.
| -
|
| 1.6.5.G
| -
| -
|
Use of misleading or ambiguous appearance of data (e.g., visual
illusions) to manipulate target's interpretation of data (e.g., a comparison).
| -
|
| 1.6.5.H
| -
| -
|
Faulty analogy (Logical Fallacy 08). Relate to common, but
inappropriate experience.
| -
|
| 1.6.5.I
| -
| -
|
Dissimulate something; e.g., a capability. Cause failure of
recognition of a pattern by providing data incompatible with it.
| -
|
| 1.6.6
|
EVALUATION, CHOICE, & PREDICTION: (See MANAGER.) Prediction contributes
to expectations; Building & use of hypotheses; see MANAGER. Prediction supports interpretation
of info & K at all levels.
| -
|
Relativitism (Logical Fallacy 16.). 'All things are relative';
no essential or absolute features.
| -
|
| 1.6.6.1
| States & Processes Supporting 'PREDICT'.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.6.1.1
| Context (see MANAGER).
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.6.1.1.1
|
Current spacial & temporal context (see MANAGER; STM; &
EXEC 1.8.8.2.1.).
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.6.1.1.2
| Long term & associative context (see LTM).
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.6.1.2
| MANAGER processes using theories, models, etc.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.7
|
DIRECT (ORCHESTRATE). (First part of external output processing.
See AFFECTORS for IMPLEMENT & DRIVE).
| -
| Orchestrate multiple actions to achieve a unified deceptive effect.
| -
|
| 1.6.7.1
|
Pattern generation USING established actions (e.g., automatic
processes, procedures, routines).
| -
| Capitalize on target's established behaviors and actions.
| -
|
| 1.6.7.1.a
| -
| -
|
Evoke from target an inappropriate or self-defeating response
(e.g., by misleading target as to nature of threat & context, evoking the corresponding
countermeasure).
|
Soft snowball showers target who, instead of ducking, blocks
it as if were hard. Bomb designed not to detonate until defused. Drone with missiles
programmed to hit whatever shoots drone down.
|
| 1.6.7.1.b
| -
| -
|
Capitalize on target's tendency to see new information in terms
of his old framework and questions, even when new ones are required.
| -
|
| 1.6.7.1.c
| -
| -
|
Induce target to utilize outdated policy or other behaviors
which were established on the basis of beliefs no longer held, but which are difficult
to identify and change when beliefs change. Subgoals may take on a 'life of their
own' even after the goals target support are obsolete.
| -
|
| 1.6.7.2
| BUILDING / learning (orchestrated) action patterns.
| -
| Teach target something we can exploit.
| -
|
| 1.6.7.3
| ACTION PROCESSES.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.7.3.1
| Domain of operation:
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.7.3.1.1
| Temporal.
| -
|
Capitalize on situation known to cause delay (e.g. to buy
time).
| -
|
| 1.6.7.3.1.2
| Controls & Constraints.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.7.3.1.3
| Resources (e.g. avail of sensors and affectors).
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.7.3.1.4
| Output.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.7.3.2
| (IDEF) parameters for Process:
| -
| Induce target to use up resources at wrong time or place.
| -
|
| 1.6.7.3.2..1
| Input.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.a
| -
| Meaning
|
(Logical Fallacy 01.) Hasty generalization from insufficient
sample / data.
| -
|
| 1.6.b
| -
| Problem solving
|
overgeneralize (use of general characteristic of inhomog group).
(Overgeneralization of statistical base.)
| -
|
| 1.6.c
| -
| Linguistic processing
| population stereotype (non-use of gen char of homog group)
| -
|
| 1.6.c.a
| -
| Inference
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.c.b
| -
| Parsing
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.c.c
| -
| Verbal representation
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.c.d
| -
| Semantics
| -
| -
|
| 1.6.d
| -
| -
|
sweeping generalization (without taking into account special
circumstances--reverse direction from overgeneralization).
| -
|
| 1.6.e
| -
| -
|
Fallacy of composition (if true for each member, then true for
the group as an entity) (Logical Fallacy 09).
| -
|
| 1.6.f
| -
| -
|
Fallacy of division (if true for group as a entity, then true
for each member) (Logical Fallacy 10).
| -
|
| 1.6.f.aa
| -
| -
| Statistical average for group applies to each member.
| -
|
| 1.8
|
WORKING MEMORY PROCESSES (e.g., 1. STM with 'seven plus-or-minus
two' slots; 2. Spreading activation theory with working memory as an 'illuminated'
or 'activated' part of LTM).
|
STM Memorial Comparison Process (e.g. Comparison of input
with STM contents.)
| -
| -
|
| 1.8.3
| Info storage processes (to STM).
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.8.5
|
Retention and forgetting processes (info loss, especially before
LTM storage).
| -
| Induce info loss before storage in LTM.
| -
|
| 1.8.5.1
| Decay of info with time.
| -
| Wait for info to decay with time.
| -
|
| 1.8.5.2
| Info interference.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.8.5.2.1
| Information overload.
| -
| Overload working memory with relevant information.
| -
|
| 1.8.5.3
| Discard of irrelevant or obsolete information.
| -
| Induce belief that info is irrelevant or obsolete.
| -
|
| 1.8.5.4
| Interference with retention (rehearsal) process.
| -
| Give competing task to interfere with rehearsal process.
| -
|
| 1.8.8
|
COGNITIVE SYSTEM's WORKING MEMORY (STM) IMAGES. (Also see 8.8.
LTM: INTERNAL IMAGES.)
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.8.8.1
| WORKING IMAGE: GOAL STATES
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.8.8.2
| WORKING IMAGE: CURRENT STATE / SITUATION
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.8.8.2.1
| World STATE (environment, ...).
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.8.8.2.2
| Current STATE / situation and PROCESSES.
| -
|
Provide an alternative explanation (or 'cover') to mislead
target regarding the purpose of current processes, e.g., regarding the means of obtaining
information.
|
Psychics sometimes use the 'one-ahead' method (claiming to
be verifying one message while actually reading the next) to simulate reading of
sealed messages by psychic powers.
|
| 1.8.8.2.2.1
| Current context.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.8.8.2.2.1.1
| Spacial context.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.8.8.2.2.1.2
| Temporal context.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.8.8.2.2.1.A
| -
| -
|
Induce desired action by creating incorrect context and
thereby making the desired action appropriate rather than inappropriate.
|
Trojan horse (discard war context for peace context).
In a 'Mission Impossible' TV episode, a prisoner is induced to believe that he has
regained consciousness in a post- holocaust world and is therefore no longer bound
by his prior loyalties and reasons for keeping secrets his captors needed.
|
| 1.8.8.2.2.1.A.aa
| -
| -
| Artifice: manipulate context to make a lie more believable.
| -
|
| 1.8.8.2.2.1.B
| -
| -
|
Influence target by using ceremony & setting (Logical Fallacy
21). (E.g., by persuasion, affecting emotions, goals, priorities, scheduling, etc.
See section 1.1.)
|
In a 'Ghost Show,' darkness, special effects, and the
lack of familiar context can make one feel strange and spooky.
|
| 1.8.8.3
| WORKING IMAGE: HISTORY / RECENT PAST
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.8.8.3.1
| Significance of past / current events.
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.8.8.4
|
WORKING IMAGE: PREDICTED / PROJECTED FUTURE STATES (e.g., outcomes
for alternative options). (see Payoff Matrix; Evaluate / Predict).
| -
| -
| -
|
| 1.8.a
| -
| Capacity limited to five 'chunks'
| -
| -
|
| 1.8.a.aa
| -
| Decay of info within about 30 seconds
| -
| -
|
| 1.8.a.bb
| -
| Interference by other info
| -
| -
|