One Significant Way Human Trust is Significantly Flawed

I had a discussion the other day that reminded of something I had noticed decades ago (and had also discussed with people back then).

The difference between then and now boils down to this: whereas decades ago I thought this was something that we could and should fix, today I am quite doubtful whether it is something that can be fixed at all. Anyone who has ever been foolishly speeding down a highway in (or on) some vehicle and who all of sudden encounters slippery road conditions would only strongly “hit the brakes” if they were severely inexperienced. In many cases, turning things around on a dime is simply nearly impossible. I now believe the issue I was reminded of a few days ago is one of those cases which simply cannot be changed, and can only be accepted as one of those well-known “laws of nature”.

The issue has to do with human trust. Maybe not exclusively, but quite certainly humans have developed some very particular trust mechanisms over the millions of years in which our species has evolved. One such mechanism is the way trust is based on visual information — I spoke with a friend today about the way (for example) facial recognition is important and he supported this notion (and I consider him to be quite a specialist on the topic). Our species has evolved to be very dependent on visual data.

There’s just something different about receiving information from a human being with a face rather than an avatar with a photo.

Josepha Haden-Chomposy, “WordPress — In Person!” (WordPress Briefing #12, ca. 10:15 [ ] )

Since our brains are hardwired for being so strongly focused on visual data, many long-standing information technologies are also based on visual data. Although Josepha doesn’t quite put her finger on it, I believe what she is referring to is that whereas “in-the-flesh” humans are convincingly real and authentic, any visual representation can easily be manipulated and fake.

This divergence between things we perceive as trustworthy (yet which we perhaps ought to be skeptical of) and the technological manifestation of manipulative efforts (used in a wide variety of propaganda technologies to influence our thinking and behavior — and which perhaps ought to be considered distrustworthy because they are inherently meaningless and empty) seems to be a fundamental flaw in human beings.

This flaw is so deeply ingrained in our mental makeup, that perhaps we cannot even fight against it. If the fake is indiscernible from the real, then fooling naive people will continue and remain rampant, quick and easy as child’s play. Millions of years of evolution cannot simply be reversed overnight.

Any information technology strongly based on visual information ought to be interpreted as distrustworthy (which means “worthy of distrust“) — in sharp contrast (and completely opposite) to the way human trust mechanisms have developed through millions of years of evolutionary development. This should give any rational thinking person significant pause (to think about the current situation humanity is now in).

PS: yes, this has a LOT to do with “Social Business Regulation: Introduction & Socio BIZ Rule #1” [ ]

Propaganda Information Technology vs. Indigena Information Technology — the Basic Idea

Let’s begin with information technology: All languages are infomation technologies, but not every information technology is a language. To qualify as a language, an information technology must be shared (in a free and open manner) among a community of users. Any and all aspirations to make an information technology proprietary immediately disqualifies it as a language. This is the case, for example, among registered trademarks, secret codes and such.

Now let’s turn to languages, in particular Latin. Indigena and propaganda are long-standing concepts based in the Latin language. They are basically opposites. Indigena (from “endo-” + “genus”) means inborn (either as adjective or as a noun). Propaganda is a term from the point of view of the propagandist — meaning essentially to propagate something (such as Christianity) in another environment (from its own native environment). In a zero-sum world, concepts are either native (indigena) or foreign (propaganda). That is all fine in a logical or mathematical manner, but reality is rarely so clear-cut.

Societies can be rather open or closed — and when they are more open, ideas can cross borders quite freely and easily. Such cross-pollination is generally seen as mutually beneficial, both in the natural world and also in the world of ideas. The expectation is that evolution will over time shape natural languages much in the same way it shapes species via the process referred to as “survival of the fittest”. Once you realize that since fittest refers to environmental conditions, and also that since nearly everything else is also evolving concurrently, the complexity of the systems involved increases dramatically as feedback loops upon feedback loops make for extremely loopy situations.

So while the indigena concept has rather fuzzy boundaries — starting right from the way “mother tongues” are not actually passed on in a genetic manner, but generally rather via involvement of close (but not fully identical) relatives … all the way to how languages are abstract and how they can transcend regional boundaries likewise freely and easily — the propaganda concept is nonetheless clearly different, insofar as it is a one-sided affair rather than mutually agreed upon. If done artfully, it may be successful in an enticing and seductive manner, fooling the sucker into believing they themselves choose to get on board.

All propaganda needs to be effective is a sufficient supply of suckers. Perhaps not every single one of Pavlov’s dogs behaved in the “Pavlovian” manner, but apparently enough did. And through the wonders of mesmerizing technology and ample amounts of legalese documentation and fine print, the trick of getting enough suckers to sign up for free offers is as easy as offering sweet candy to babes.

Among an out-of-sight-out-of-mind generation it is also a piece of cake to maintain propaganda communications at near-zero cost. The vast majority of suckers do not realize that they are being spied on around the clock, and that the communications they themselves believe to be clear and unadulterated are so adulterated that you would think it ought to be unlawful [ ].