Archbishop Slams Social Networking

via news.bbc.co.uk

Archbishop Vincent Nichols seems to presume that people are gullible when it comes to the majority of us not grasping the adverse impact of social networking. He warns us all in a rather sweeping generalisation that social networking sites, texting and would you believe it e-mails are undermining community life!.

Now lets just run past that again. Modern society is falling apart because of e-mail?! OK...let me ponder on that for a moment. OK...done that and concluded that it sort of runs counter to the evidence given its contribution to long-distance family life and commerce. The same holds true for all other forms of digital communication.

Of course his conjecture will contains grains of truth, and he draws attention to the well worn fact most social media users have been blogging about for years, the well understood phenomenon of 'social networking friendship'

Now, notwithstanding the extreme cases in any large population, I'm pretty confident that most people who have friended and followed me across Twitter, Friend Feed, Blogcatalog, MyBlogLog and so on don't really consider me to their 'bosom buddy'. The label 'friend' in this context is merely an evolved use of the term for use in a social media sitaution. Sure I'm in touch on a regular basis with a handful of fellow bloggers who I've got to know, and I would consider them my 'friend' in the sense of 'pen-pal', and of course we haven't physically 'met'. Nevertheless I do regard them as a social networking Friend (capital 'F'- proper digital friend) not just a social networking friend (lower case 'f'- digital aquaintance)

Had the Archbishop been commenting in previous decades would he have claimed that having 'pen-pals' was socially dysfunctional.?

In his criticism of 'transient' relationships that cause grief and upset when they fall apart. He seems to be describing the common socio-psychological characteristics of any relationship and somehow blaming a technological medium for when they go wrong!! In social networking Trolls and Flamers are socially and psychologically dysfunctional they are not technologically dysfunctional. They would behave as they did in a family, on street, in a village, in a town because that is how they are!.

The Archbishop has missed his target if he has any cause for concern. The clue is in the title. SOCIAL networking. Its the PEOPLE stupid!. The network is merely the technological medium not the attitude and behaviour of its users.

What about all the people who have found enduring relationships through sites like Match.com and so on? People who have traced lost family and friends through Friends Re-United, People who have found work through LinkedIN?

Instead of patronising us by thinking that he can see issues and problems that people less perceptive than himself the Archbishop is foreclosing the opportunity of social networking to his own vocation. Come on 'Bish, you would like to socially influence people about your attitudes and beliefs wouldn't you?, you'd like bigger congregations hearing what you have to say wouldn't you?. Well...just a suggestion...why not consider delivering your message through the medium that a significant number of people choose to use in the 21st century instead of relying on a social networking technology of the the 1st millennium aka the physical Church building. After all isn't the true meaning of Church really about a congregation of people with similar beliefs NOT the physical place they meet!!

Now here's the question. Archbishop Vincent Nichols...will you be my friend?

Posted via web from Gullibimundi

School bans black-face Morris Men

via news.bbc.co.uk

Which fool decided that there was any connection between the black faces of Morris Men and potential offence? This is a tradition of hundreds of years and has no racist connotations whatsoever.

The people who make these pronouncements need to publicly defend the logic of their position far more robustly than simply 'imagining' any and every offence that could be taken in this case and any and every possible case.

Usually the ability to spot patterns that connect is a highy valued intellectual skill. That of course is if the patterns are relevant and meaningful.

Prejudicial hypersensitivity is a debilitating and negative outlook. It is NOT intellectually clever to make any old connection and claim that their might be a risk of offence. The precrime thought police seem to be the ones who are prejudiced. Predjudiced against innocent traditions, predjudiced against common sense, and predjudiced against normal people who they regard as simpletons.

How dare they assume that we are all gullible and cannot see the danger lurking behind the face paint of Morris Men, how dare they presume our gullibility, how dare they think that they have privelaged insights to which we are all blind.

They are the people who are drenched in predjudice. So soaking wet in it they leave their soggy thinking footprints wherever they go.

These people should grow up and take their sixth form hand wringing out of public office.

Posted via web from Gullibimundi

Evidence of Gullibility

Its been a while since I reviewed my Technorati page I notice that my 'authority' sits at 7 and that I've attracted 55 fans.

One neat aspect of Technorati is the 'watchlist' and a key word for me is as you would expect 'Gullibility' Over the last few days there have been a couple of great links.

The first is this one that claims to be images recovered from the inside of ill fated flight AF 447 Titled Gullibility (hooray!) the images seem to be clips from a TV series.

Next is a blog called Daily Irrelevant which covers a story about prize winning students who later had their prize revoked"prize-winners, Guillaume Chauvin and Rémi Hubert, read out a statement admitting to the hoax, stating that they had wanted to make a “powerful artistic gesture” attacking the “voyeurism” and gullibility of parts of the press" as they took Paris Match for a ride.

Candid World
talks about the gullibility of people involved with Scientology, posting a fasciinating comment stream too.

It would seem that a fairly low intensity but steady stream of gullibility pervades the blogosphere.

The Rise of Hate 2.0

via news.bbc.co.uk

We'd be gullible if we thought that the digital space was any different from the FtF space. The full diversity of sense-making and behaviour from people of various persuasions will clearly be able to find a voice and constituency in the fluid and far reach medium of digital conversations.

This recent BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8097979.stm is certainly thought provoking.

This merely serves to underscore the need to develop the education and critical skills of all digital media users. This will enable them to readily challenge the flawed logic of the hate-mongers and spot a gross generalisation and simplification at a 1000 meters.

People on the whole have become more media savvy. They know that people have agendas when they communicate. The disturbing feature of social media is that it enables 'the disturbed' who might have been previously disjointed to connect. And in this 'connection' to believe that they are establishing a general norm instead of a perverse small group norm.

Do we see a Hate 2.0 career path here? Does leaving a flame comment mean you will become a Troll, does becoming a troll mean you are predisposed to finding affinities with more established hate groups, does an on-line hate group manifest itself in physical action?

There might be a saving grace in the very nature of social media itself! The power of crowds only really works in the physical realm. Crowd psychology is a powerful thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology The Nazis may have utilised the new technologies of film and radio but it was only in the setting of mass public meetings that the virulence of their thinking took hold.

Posted via web from Reasonable's posterous

Police break up new Tehran rally

via news.bbc.co.uk

Am I missing something? Does the Iranian regime assume that millions of their own are people are gullible enough to be duped by social media messages from 'The West'? How does that work? Surely taking issue with the dogmatic views of a powerful regime requires 'critical thinking'.

Which means that if the the 'subversive' messages from the West' are as flawed, baseless and biased as the regime say they are then the very people they are meant to influence would see straight through them too (because they are smart independently minded people) and therefore they would support the regime.

Posted via web from Reasonable's posterous

Blog Posts Directly via E-Mail

The situation regarding the remaining 3 British hostages looks precarious. The hunt will soon be on for someone to blame http://www.bloggingtoblame.blogspot.com

I've used my e-mail account and  http://www.posterous.com to create this post to see what happens

Posted via email from Reasonable's posterous

Can Posterous Keep Communication Open In Iran?

via news.bbc.co.uk

I'm trying http://posterous.com/ to see how it makes a difference to my blogging. I picked up information about the site from Steve Rubel. You can read more via this link http://www.micropersuasion.com/2009/06/posterous-is-changing-how-i-think-about-blogging.html What I am expecting to happen is that this post using the Posterous book marklet updates my Twitter and Blogger blog automatically, posts and image and converts urls to links. So let's see!

With a Posterous account once it has been set up I can 'attach' my other social media accounts and then update via e-mail. Neat!

Posted via web from Reasonable's posterous

I'm So Bored of 'Sorry'

Politicians, Perpetrators and Perverts all seem to want to play the 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card called I'm Sorry. and I'm really bored with the all the public chest beating and hand wringing that we see when people are caught out when events catch up with them.

Just how gullible do these people think we are I wonder? The 'sorry valve' is used far too often, the very knowledge of its existence encourages people to hardly pay any attention to their actions in the present. It numbs the mind to consequences. It is an over-used social safety net.

So in the case of politicians what could be more worrying. People who don't think through consequences. Aren't we paying politicians to think through complex situations on our behalf. Can you imagine someone like Winston Churchill saying 'sorry' if he'd lost WW2? The latest public demonstration of public behaviour therapy comes from Might Mouse Hazel Blears. Oh how she regrets her resignation timing, oh how sorry she for wearing that childish 'rocking the boat' badge. What more evidence do we need that she shouldn't have had any responsibility in high office in the first place.

Then we have the perpetrators. The killers of Ben Kinsella who have just been sent down for 'life'. No doubt in a few years we'll hear how 'sorry' they were for what they did, particularly if it assists their parole hearing. Ben Kinsella was an innocent young man and a victim of a consequence free thinking. We should stop talking of Knife Crime and start talking about the The Crime of Consequence Deficient Thinking. By focussing on the Knife we focus on the object not the subject!

No doubt we will soon hear how sorry Amanda Knox is in a few days too. Whatever happened when Meredith Kercher was murdered, she'll put it across as anything but anything to do with her lack of attention to consequences.

And finally how soon will it be the 'sorry' of Vanessa George Surely there must have a moment, a split second before the camera was taken into the nursery and when she thought about what she was about to do? Commit the act and say sorry after the fact.

These people have de-valued Sorry and they don't even regret doing it!.

Sorry it seems is not the hardest word.


Here's How To Apologise

Am I Gullible If I Believe In Luck?

Do good and bad things happen in your life because of Luck? Aren't we being gullible if we think we can change our luck by using charms, colours, numbers, sequences and the like in an attempt to alter destiny.

Was the lady who threw away her mother's mattress containing $1million dollars badly organised, ill informed or just unlucky?

Were the additional 42 people who have just been diagnosed with Swine Flu in Britain simply unfortunate?

Was the man who found a dead mouse in his loaf of bread unlucky too?

Why is it that we attribute things we can't control to a lack of luck. Why do we spend so much time and energy on trying to find out How To Attract Good Luck and Fortune into our lives

Surely things just ARE. Aren't they? As Marcus Aurelius said "How ridiculous and how strange to be surprised at anything which happens in life!"

Seeing Through The Hype of Social Media

Do you have the feeling that someone is watching you? Is Social Media the death knell of the private individual? How does the rhetoric stack up with the reality?

There is dominant meme that runs through the world of Web 2.0. The meme is...'Social Media Is Good For You'. No matter the specalism journalism, business, hobbies, education, politics, etc you're cutting edge if you 'do it' and a Luddite if you don't.

Social Media will transform your business, Social Media helps you develop and exploit social networks, Social Media means you're never out of touch...It also means you're never out of reach!

The irony is that through Social Media I've just become aware of Two Point Touch Now this blog is right up my street. (Hang on am I proving the Social Media point here? I'd never have known about this if it wasn't for a link via Twitter!)

I really like the posts (Did I really type that!) because they take a more informed view on the Social Media phenomenon. In particular I like the connection to Critical Theory and other critical positions. Check out Surrender Foucault and Twitter There are some other great links that take a provocative view on the 'Social' rather than just the 'Media' too. I would really recommend reading the links in the article, and visit Always Look on The Bright Side of the Downside because it casts a critical gaze at the Social Media Evangelist.

Now, in case you are wondering, there are two main aspects of 'critcial thinking'. One concerns critcism of a phenomenon from the 'outside' The sort of 'wooooh Social Media is evil' perspective and there is what is known as 'immanent' critcism, which comes from particpants in a phenomenon such as Social Media who attempt to protect themselves against hype and un-thinking acceptance of everything that is put before them. I'd like to think I was in the latter camp. The cyber evangelists are just as bad as the luddites. I love Social Media, otherwise I wouldn't be blogging and social networking. I also believe that it has the potential for creating good and releasing talent in every aspect of society. That said, it does have its issues. Its a 'Time Vampire. Walk the dog? or Write the blog? The digital space is full of exactly the same characters as the face to face space too, we'd be gullible if we thought it was any different. There are charlatans and snake oil salesmen, Technological Determinists and Techno-Geeks. They all want a piece of you if you are willing and careless enough to give it.

So, eyes wide open folks! Participate in Social Media and remember there are consequences. Join a Nudist Colony and you can expect people can see your private parts.

Google Claims Virus Control Role

image Peeping Tom


Looks like Larry Page is using one of the oldest tricks in the social influence book to disuade authorities from limiting the time data can be held by the mega-corp Google.

Fear sells. The implied threat is that if Google can't do it's job then we're all gonna die!!

Really? is that true? Oh go on then we believe you. We must allow Google to store as much data about our computer useage as possible because its clear there is a direct correlation between amount of data held and our susceptibility to pandemic biological viruses.

Not only is Google a 'Search' engine it is now a 'Stop' engine too. Wow! Search and Stop!? Now doesn't that remind of your friendly neighbourhood Police State? The wonder of computer mediated technology. Let's be honest Larry more people knew what was and is happening wih Swine Flu' via standard health monitoring, TV, newspapers and Twitter than Google.

Not only that surely batches of 6 monthly data will reveal a trend without having to keep the data stored? The cumulative data to that point can be saved in Excel can't it? or is that just 'Sooooo 20th century'?

Mind you if Larry is concerned about reputation management then maybe that explains alot. Larry wants us to believe that Google has an important role to play in the health of the world. Maybe then, Larry Page's claims shouldn't be sneezed at. Apparently sneezing was considered something of a social skill in the 17th century! People who considered themselves opinion leaders and belonging to the higher classes practised 'sneezing on demand' to show dissaproval of an idea. Being able to sneeze showed an ability to afford 'snuff' which only rich and clever people could do, of course.

According to Larry Page (is this where the idea of Page Rank came from by any chance??) Google's "up-to-date influenza estimates may enable public health officials and health professionals to better respond to seasonal epidemics and pandemics." and the less data companies like Googe were able to hold the "more likely we all are to die".

Achoooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Read more:
Wiping data 'hits flu prediction'
Etymology of 'not to be sneezed at'

Salient Advertising and the Album Cover

The Manic Street Preachers have given us case study in gullibility with the release of their new album and its controversial cover. As Bandler and Grinder say "The meaning of communication is the way it is received" and when I look at that cover I associate it with a young female victim of violent crime, which disturbs me because I then start to wonder about the context of how it might have happened. I then switch to wondering if using such an image is an appropriate image to represent an entertainment product.

There are several possible explanations for what is going off here.Is what the Manic Street Preachers do about entertainment or art? If you believe its entertainment then no doubt the use of an image that risks being construed as violent is pretty naive. I don't think the Manic Street Preachers are naive. If you believe what they do is art then perhaps the reason for using the artwork on the cover of the Journal For Plague Lovers album is justified from a post-modern standpoint. i.e. all opinions are equally valid, there is no absolute right or wrong, art is about raising controversial and difficult issues and provoking us to think about them. The supermarket managers who have covered up the image for sale clearly believe selling albums is not about art.

Interesting that the group don't claim 'their art' as the reason for using the image. They profess innocence. "We just thought it was a beautiful painting...It is her brushwork...if you're familiar with her work, there's a lot of ochres and browns and reds and browns...We just saw a much more modern version of Lucian Freud-esque brushstrokes"

Either the Manics are gullible or they think that we are. The use of Salience is a familiar device to anyone in the business of communication. Remember the Benneton adverts and the dying Aids victim?





Salience is used to 'cut through' the background noise in our social world, and the Manics or their advisors were clearly aware that using a controversial image would attract attention (I'm blogging about it for goodness sake!). Perhaps the truth of their point of view is given in their supposed denial when they say "perhaps people are looking for us to be more provocative than we are being" Frequently the truth of meaning is the direct opposite of what is said. In other words they sub-consciously reveal that they are being provocative. Listen for it next time you hear someone say things like "You are just being awkard", or "You are clearly devious"...what are they really saying? This is classic Projection which is a "a defense mechanism where a person's personal attributes, unacceptable or unwanted thoughts, and/or emotions are ascribed onto another person or people.(Wikipedia 2009)

In a triumphant 'I'm gullible or I hope you are' statement James Dean Bradfield claims "It is bizarre that supermarkets actually think that that's going to impinge on anyone's psyche."

Well the retailers are sensitive because they know that's exactly what they do for a day job! We are all in the business of changing minds and social influence.Big business does it for a living. Marketers call it Positioning - The Battle for Your Mind. If there was no chance that the album cover would 'impinge on someone's psyche' why the hell do we have album covers in the first place? Why aren't they all sold in plain covers? Why invest the money in the artwork? Why have meetings to decide what the album artwork should be? Album covers are powerful and unduring pieces of communication. Don't believe me? OK. Don't think about Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon album cover...now tell me what happened!

If it doesn't matter and it doesn't have any effect Mr Bradfield why are you bothered about the supermarkets covering it up?

If A Flying Pig Flaps Its Wings In Mexico...

Is it gullible to think that Swineflu will just fly away? Don't want to hear about it, don't want to see it, don't want to talk about just in case we attract its attention to our door?

The global reality is ramping up with the terrible news of an infant swineflu death in the USA.

It seems unlikely that we can control the chaotic consequences of the Flying Pig Effect. What was a local Mexican incident is likely to follow a typical Epidemic Curve well know to Epidemiologists and result in a Pandemic whether we like it or not.

OK, we've been given advice on how to de-risk the situation, but how can this translate into public spaces (often confined) such as planes, offices, and trains? Yesterday I sat for an hour on a commuter train with a guy coughing and spluttering, do we have the right to put a big over his head or ask him to get off the train? Does swineflu mean we need to develop new social protocols as well as health protocols.

The UK sets an historical social precedent with the Plague Village of Eyam. When plague hit the village in May 1665 the population cut themselves off from direct contact with the rest of the country. The plague ravaged the village for 16 months killing at least 260 villagers. 83 villagers survived out of 350.

Massive Rush For University Places

image credit Sheffield Hallam University



The science of social influence predicts that the present surge in interest in university education will gather momentum.

Worries about job security and the ability to secure employment from the diminishing reservoir of jobs means that more people than ever are seeking university places. This can only drive up demand as people see university education as 'social proof' that it it is a good idea. This in turn will generate scarcity, which will increase the value of places.

So, is a university education a good idea during these uncertain times? Well if it can be funded it might be a haven away from the trials and tribulations of a stormy job market. 3 years should see you through the worst of the recession I guess. On the other hand is a university education right for you? Remember universities are places of academic study and endeavour and this comes with certain obligations and expectations. Sure many of the so called 'new' universities are climbing down from their ivory towers and providing more vocational courses. Don't be gullible and think that a university education is exclusively learning more about a subject 'in depth' and that because you know 'more stuff' that well entitle you to a job.

People still by people. For sure the university experience should develop your self confidence and self esteem, but it would be gullible too if you thought that the degree in itself will guarantee you a job when you re-surface in 3-4 years time. Just be mindful of all of the people who are thinking just like you are at the moment and armed with their new degrees they will be hunting for jobs when the economy picks up. The degree should not be thought of as a 'competitive difference' in its own right.

Be prepared to see your 'world view' change. A degree is a process of intellectual transformation, even if you study hard sciences or social sciences. You will go through periods of frustration and elation, motivation and demotivation. Crucially don't ever be duped into believing that you are embarking on a process of 'getting all the answers'. You are embarking on a process that continually confronts you with how little you know and how much there is to know.

A degree can be inspirational. Giving you ideas and thought processes that kick start you on an independent path. No more being dependent on other people's businesses for your income, no more putting your eggs in someone elses basket, no more being the the 'thing' that is cut loose after years of management rhetoric telling you 'what a valuable team player your are', or just 'how vital you are the organisations success'

A degree can help you row your own boat, and possibly even build one. If you make one good decision this year then it's probably 'don't miss out on increasingly scarce university places'. Now that would be gullible wouldn't it!

Read more:
is a degree worth anything in a recession

University Choice Resource:
Choosing a British University

Lies, Deception and The Selfish Meme

image credit Walt Disney

I'm reading Richard Dawkins book The Selfish Gene for the first time. I have never read Pinnochio.

On page 63 of the 30th Anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene (OUP) he says...

"A survival machine may be said to have communicated another one when it influences the behaviour or the state of its nervous system". This got me thinking about general social situations and current affairs like the Banking fiasco and how unscrupulous people are hell bent on making sure their version of events survive.

I have also recently read Steven Pinker's book The Blank Slate in which he explains that:

"Every human relationship…has a distinct psychology forged by a pattern of converging and diverging interests" adding that we "suppress evidence that we are not as beneficent or competent as we would like to think"

In other words if we think we've been gullible because we haven't spotted someone lying or decieving us then we should be kinder to ourselves because we are so susceptible to the power and skill of a deciever.

Robert Trivers suggests that:

“If…deceit is fundamental to animal communication, then there must be strong selection to spot deception and this ought, in turn, to select for a degree of self-deception, rendering some facts and motives unconscious so as not to betray…the deception being practised. Thus the conventional view that natural selection favours nervous systems which produce ever more accurate images of the world must be a very naïve view of mental evolution”


Woah!! our nervous systems (brains and cognitions) are NOT about creating the truth and there is survival benefit in telling lies.

Dawkins points out (p64) that many animals are in the business of deception from butterflies to angler fish, glow worms to hover-flies. With the Bankers in mind (and of course this applies to any deciever in any social situation), Dawkins then makes the precient remark that:

"Whenever a communication system evolves there is always the danger that some will exploit the system for their own ends...we must expect lies and deceit and selfish exploitation of communication to arise whenever the interests of the genes of different individuals diverge...we must even expect children to decieve their parents, that husbands will cheat on their wives and that brother will lie to brother"

Powerful ‘mind-sets’ (the rich, the bully, the narcissist) make sense of and speak of the world in a particular way. This could be described as the ‘selfish meme’ It resists changes that might be made to a direction it didn’t want to go. Change is not about rational actors but rationalising people. These rationalisations (theories for success and of causes and effects) are expressed as words that grow into discourses, which in turn inhabit the world of social influence, a world in which rival versions of the truth seek to survive longer than their adversaries by any means they can in order to protect the psychological integrity of the individual who cares for them.

The only evolutionary development human's needed now is for lying genes to influence the size of someone's nose just like Pinnochio. Just imagine...never being duped again, I could justify my investment in my wide screen TV because of its ability to cope with 'Nasal Extensiveness'seen in Political Broadcasts and in Treasury Committee hearings :)

Drug Company or Drug Dealer?

The UK Government are drawing attention to the way in which Drug Company representatives are taking advantage of Doctors by offering 'gifts' as incentives or 'thankyou's' for placing an order. In her recent article Call for end to drug firms' gifts Jane Dreaper reveals how drug companies are enticing Doctors to try their drugs by offering a gift

Where exactly is the difference between this behaviour and the behaviour of street drug pushers?

At the moment the industry code of practice allows:

"drug companies to give small promotional gifts that are relevant to doctors' work, such as pens or surgical gloves."

Just how gullible is the industry?? Have they not read anything of Robert Cialdini's work in influence and persuasion? it is precisely because the gifts are small that they have so much persuasive power!!

The Drug companies are sophisticated commercial enterprises who are clearly familiar with marketing and selling methods. What these small gifts do is tap into a phenomenon known as Reciprocation. This works because no matter how small the gift we feel morally compelled to 'repay the favour' as a way of achieving psychological balance. Not only that once a person has agreed to a small request, they are much more likely to be predisposed to 'up-selling'.Its the same approach that supermarkets use when offering 'taster' samples, or charities do when they send a pen with a donation request. Give somebody an unsolicted gift and they are strongly compelled to return the favour. Do it to enough people and even a small percentage of 'takers' dramatically affects the bottom line.

The real bonus is that the Drug Company sales people are dealing with Doctors. Highly trained professionals such as medical people, accountants, solicitors etc have a well developed sense of their ability to be in control of their decision making. They believe it is impossible for them to be taken advantage of. Chris Argyris covers this in a fascinating Harvard Business Review article called Teaching Smart People How To Learn In the article Argyris explains that professionals firmly believe they are more astute and aware than the average Joe or Josephine and are simply resistant to being duped. They believe they are cognitively 'in control' of the situation and are too smart to be affected by mere sales ploys.

What they underestimate is the emotional, sub conscious effect of techniques such as giving a small gift. Just like the street drug user, they think that they are the one's in control, believing that trying 'just a small amount' keeps them in control. Don't be daft! as soon as you try the sample, accept the freebie you're hooked!

Dr Carol Cooper told the BBC that doctors were professionals and unlikely to be unduly influenced by the drug companies.Accept a small gift and as medical practioners will understand, you take the first step on the 'addiction career path'...Oh dear Carol...they've got you!!!

War on Terror is now a War on Error!

David Miliband UK Foreign Secretary has said that the idea of a War on Terror was a mistake because it had unified disparate terrorist groups against the west.

Way to go Dave!

This recognition of gullibility provides us with some classic lessons in the use and misuse of the psychology of social influence. Whether the original decision (that should really read bush-ision my new word for any dodgy decision!)to use the term War on Terror was a deliberate but mistaken use of social psychology we'll probably never know.What we can explain are the methods that have and are being used to influence and change the way we think.

The original idea of the War on Terror is a classic case of the Granfalloon a "a proud and meaningless association of human beings" (K.Vonnegut). This happens when appeals to common ancestry and common enemies are made and involves the social influence technique called Altercasting. Altercasting is when you 'cast' other people in a role, or give them an identity that they weren't previously aware that they had. Once you have done that they come to think of themselves as 'connected', we think of them of them as 'connected' and we both interpret how they behave and should behave as somehow 'connected'.

David Miliband has realised that the bush-ision to start a War on Terror has caused problems and is now using another social influence method called Framing to change the meaning of the term Terrorism in our minds. Quote "Terrorism is a deadly tactic, not an institution or an ideology"

This is more like the truth. Terrorists are undoubtedly highly trained, cunning and committed. They are, nevertheless, more criminals and bullies than philosophers and sages and like all bands of thieves and vagabonds they come together as loose and fragile confederacies made up of socio-pathic self interested individuals who would kill each other and their own grandmother's if there was something in it for them.

To 'cast' them as an equal, an enemy, an adversary in War gives them a status beyond what is credible. Whatever the politics and practicalities, whatever the balance between military action and humanitarian aid, whatever the attack and atrocity, we now have a War on Error. The opening shots have been fired and this new war will be one that is won because terrorists are now being seen for what they are. In turn this will influence the actions appropriate for dealing with them. As always every failure of implementation is a failure of formulation.

How To Avoid People Getting A Piece Of Your Ass

How good is this! An Australian Judge confronts a criminal with the true consequences of his crimes by explaining to Cody Heap the sort of amorous attention he can expect to get in Prison

So, the tables turn from heap spending his life thinking 'WIIFM' (what's in it for me)to TIWITFY (This is what in there for you!)

Judge Brian Maloney is to be commended for his skill in Social Influence and making the dangers of his actions clear to Heap. In this he will induce avoidance behaviour by confronting Heap with his fears. I hereby sentence you to a trip on the Midnight Express...toot toot all aboard.

How Do I Become A Success?

Is there a formula for personal success and if there is where do you find it? Once the penny of gullibility drops and you realise that there never was a direct correlation between hard work and success, or talent and success, then the hunt for something else starts.

Many of the Life Hacks that you bump into on the net are ken to persuade us that they have the magic approach, the correct mental attitude, the insight that has been secretly hidden from view until they came along to help.

I've just been reading some more grounded stuff from Kevin Hogan and Steven Reiss which looks at our fundamental human drives.

A key drive involves where you sit in relation to being Competitive or Co-operative. Their information about these two drives is very interesting, and crucial to answering the question 'how do I become a success'. This is because your success is as much about what people think of you as it about about what they think about themselves.

Many people lean towards helping others as the route to get on in life. The 'helpful gene' is buried deep in our DNA and has evolved to maximise immediate benefit by co-operating with potential adversaries. There is a problem with this though.

Competitive people who see themselves as 'Go getters', 'Top dogs', Winners, Hard Nosed, see co-operative people as failures, losers, lacking assertiveness. This means that if you try and ingratiate yourself with a competitive type they will simply regard you as weak. You will not benefit in any way from their success.

Being successful means standing up for yourself and what you believe. This should not be confused with selfishness. You can also use this information to influence and persuade people to buy into your ideas, buy your products or buy your services by checking what 'mode' they are in. If they come across as having a competitive attitude position yourself as competitive too, and show what you 'know, 'have' 'can do' will help them continue to win.

People succeed by looking after their interests first. This enables them to look after other people (should they choose) from a position of strength and abundance.

How Come Steven Gerrard Deserves Support?

credit footballpictures.net

















News on 20th March 2009 assualt charge dropped but Gerrard still faces charge of Affray. this is not an inconsequential charge for a celebrity and supposed sports leader. As wikipedia explains:

A person is guilty of affray if a person uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and the person's conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.

Original Post:

The public announcement by Liverpool Football club that they are giving Steven Gerrard all the support he needs is staggering in its self referenced naivite

Whilst I can understand that they might wish to advise and counsel their player privately, to link his service to the club to a justification for the need to support him is surely misguided. This reads as 'because he is a star his alleged bad behaviour should be seen in a different light to the general public'.

Steven Gerrard regardless of the regard anyone might have for his playing skills has been arrested and charged with a serious crime. It is also true that he may not be found guilty, although the Police seem to be convinced of his involvement.

This endorsement of Steven Gerrard's behaviour is yet another misguided intervention by a football club that over inflates the egos and sense of being untouchable in their players. This is a public relations disgrace and the club should be held to account. They should also learn to more circumspect about the impact of their public statements and the connotations that they contain.

The message? Behave badly in a high profile position of responsibility and you will be cosseted and cuddled. Where is the sense in that? The likely consequences will be similar displays and expectations from Saturday and Sunday league junior wannabes.

A more appropriate statement might have read "We are ashamed that these charges have been brought to a senior player at Liverpool Football Club and remind young people that if they are involved or associated in any way with incidents of violent behaviour they will be subject to the full force of the law"

Support for Mr Gerrard is taking 'You'll Never Walk Alone' a step too far!