Hacking Information Systems
A Guide to Persuasion.
Last year, Disinfology (at the time known as “Mapping the Disinformation Age”) debuted with the essay “How to Win the Modern Information War”, this article is a revised edition of that piece.
This is a guide to hacking the most complex information system of all, the human mind. It is meant for one-on-one interactions where the target responds to you, not producing persuasive material for a broad audience.
Opposition Research
Before you start hacking, it is essential to familiarize yourself with the target. Your aim should be to know as much as possible about the particular individual and the group of interest they belong to.
What is their familiarity with the topic you want to change their mind about? Which arguments do they use? What do they perceive as the main benefit of holding the belief they do?
Make your media consumption as close to the target’s as possible: follow who they follow on social media, watch the YouTube videos they watch, read the books recommended in their sphere, etc..
When engaging with opposition media take note of all names, events and lingo repeatedly referenced. Look up everything to expand your knowledge and ensure you understand the material.
If the article, book or video cites sources read them and then their sources if possible.
Never Cite Your Sources
This point might seem counterintuitive, given we were constantly reminded to cite sources when writing papers in High School.
However, I am not saying you should rely on sources and dishonestly neglect citations, but rather avoid arguments that need them.
The key to persuasion is not adding new knowledge, but to show how the person’s prior knowledge already contradicts itself by exposing logical inconsistencies.
This is explained by the Greek philosopher Epictetus in his complete works where he quotes Socrates as saying:
“It is not my custom to cite any other witness for my assertions; but I am always contented with my opponent. I call and summon him for my witness; and his single evidence serves instead of all others.”1
Epictetus argued all humans shared a common faculty of reason, therefore the philosopher should enlighten others by teasing out the truth buried inside them.
When you tell someone you have seen so-and-so or that “X” said so-and-so they might not believe you. They would have to look it up later. However, if you point to something already part of their worldview they do not have to take your word for it.
Another perspective to consider is that by sending someone an article or video you are interrupting the conversation with a demand they put in work before it can continue, when what you should be doing is digest the material for them.
Mobilizing Vs. Persuasive Arguments
There are many ways to categories arguments and though it is not a comprehensive breakdown, my favorite is the distinction between mobilizing and persuasive arguments.
Mobilizing arguments are effective at getting people to take action in service of a principle they already accept. They usual work by stirring anger through highlighting a violation of said principle.
Persuasive arguments are aimed at people who do not already hold the position they advocate. They need to be calm, patient and didactic.
A long running problem in the discourse and a major reason cross aisle discussions are seldom fruitful is that people tend to talk to outsiders the same way they do insiders, i.e. relaying on mobilizing arguments when they should be using persuasive ones.
Another obstacle is that most arguments do not have the potential to persuade even if they are valid. It is not enough to give someone a reason, it needs to be enough of a reason.
What constitutes “enough” varies from person-to-person and is entirely up to the individual, what is a deal-breaker for some might not bother others and vice versa.
The things most likely to move your target are probably those that brought them where they are, therefore pay close attention to what they admire about their current worldview and dislike about yours.
If they bring up reasons why your point of view is irrational they might be more swayed by logical contradictions. If their concern is how people on your side are uncouth and deplorable they might be given pause by their side’s moral failings.
Stay in touch by following Disinfology on “X”, formerly Twitter.
“The Complete Works of Epictetus” by Epictetus. Translated by T. W. H., based on a prior translation by Elizabeth Carter. Quotation found on page 192.