December 30, 2015

The Proliferation of Devious Information: Another Gotcha!


two-faced manhypocrite deceitful person abstract vector backgroundThis week I wish to shine the spotlight on deliberate mis- and dis-information. The 2011 edition of the CIA’s Style Manual & Writers Guide for Intelligence Publications offers this distinction, “‘Disinformation’ refers to the deliberate planting of false reports,” while ‘Misinformation’ equates in meaning but does not carry the same devious connotation.” 1

Writing Tips from the CIA

This document has also been referred to as, “Writing tips from the CIA’s ruthless style manual.”  I think most readers of this document will see through the political agenda implied in the presentation instructions regarding a number of matters. Take for this one for example:

Undeclared wars, like Vietnam, should be spelled with an uncapitalized “w.” Same goes for the “Korean war” and the “Falklands war.” It goes on to argue that the writer should “avoid ‘Yom Kippur war’ which is slangy.” Presumably, the CIA prefers the term “The 1973 Arab-Israeli war.” 2

Most of the manual is rather dry and reads similarly to any style manual produced for an organization, so why take note of it at all? The simple reason is that at every level of information dissemination, there is an intentional spin placed on the communication. There is an old argument that simply states that if you control the definition, you control the argument. In my book Gotcha! this idea is fully fleshed out. For purposes here I want to focus on just one small aspect of the matter, something known in the parlance of social engineers as framing.

Framing

Let me share just a short bit of information from Gotcha!

“Framing is a perception-management tool that is used time and again. Over and over we learn that how something is said and the context in which it is framed become all-important to how information is perceived. My favorite context-framing proposition continues to be this one: If you think about the saliva in your mouth, you probably, like most, appreciate it. A dry mouth is no fun! However, if I change the context slightly and ask you to spit some of that saliva into a glass and then drink it, you’re probably immediately disgusted by the thought. This is a simple and yet powerful example of context framing. Words themselves often make the best frames. For example, if you want to redistribute wealth in America, talking about how much less the poor make than the wealthy is not the way to do it. Change the framing and instead address how rich the rich are and how much more they have than the poor have, and this new pitch is persuasive. Indeed, you can quite easily influence attitudes about wealth redistribution, as the researchers in a new study reported in Psychological Science illustrate.

The researchers recruited 79 U. S. adults to participate in an online survey about “people’s views on income inequality in the United States.” Participants in the rich-have-more condition were told that the top five percentile of wage earners make, on average, $111,000 more than the median wage earner (those in the 50th percentile). Participants in the poor have- less condition were told that the median wage earner makes, on average, $111,000 less than the top five percentile. Participants in a control condition were not given any information about income inequality. Next, the participants were asked to indicate their beliefs about why the rich are wealthy and why the poor are in poverty by completing a variety of internal- and external-attribution measures. Participants then indicated their level of support for two redistributive tax policies: one that would create a new tax bracket for people with incomes over $1 million and one that would create a new tax bracket for people with incomes over $5 million.

Finally, participants indicated their level of political conservatism and reported their household income. Conservatism was negatively associated with support for redistributive policies among participants in the control condition, confirming previous findings. This was also true for participants who were told that the poor make less than the rich. In these two groups, more conservative participants showed less support for redistributive tax policies. But participants who were told that the rich make more than the poor didn’t show a negative association between conservatism and policy support. These findings suggest that the rich-have-more frame may have reduced conservatives’ opposition to raising taxes on the rich.

Words Lost to Reframing
Many words have lost their original meaning as a result of framing. Propaganda is one such word. It used to mean, ‘to correct errors’; today it is generally thought to mean ‘a message with an agenda that is probably full of false information. ’ Another, and one that disturbs me, is the word liberal. Liberal originally referred to freedom seekers, those very same folks who founded America. Liberals were behind women gaining the vote and slavery ending. Liberals have given much to America, including Social Security and Medicare. The hard right, however, portrays liberals as tax-and-spend pirates lacking fiscal discipline and seeking to end the free market. They are portrayed as unpatriotic because they resist war and entirely lack traditional family values. Liberals are likewise guilty of such framing. They portray conservative as warmongers intent on caring for only the wealthy—to hell with the poor, the sick, and the elderly! Again, this framing is false to facts. Voters, however, often respond to the frame rather than to the truth. Just as the saliva in the glass became vile, so goes the group once they accept the frame. Here are some frames to consider, and when you do, evaluate what they mean to you and why: Patriotism, national security, rule of law, family values, religious freedom, right to life, marriage, pro-choice, progressive, secularism, and cultural relativism. Each of these terms is likely to elicit an emotional response of sorts when they are considered seriously. Why is that? What can we learn about ourselves with exercises of this nature?

Comedians
While we’re on framing, let’s address the influence the comedian has on our perceptions, particularly voters’ attitudes. In a study conducted by Amy Bree Becker, assistant professor at Towson University, voters’ attitudes were shown to become negative as a result of public ridicule of a presidential candidate. Harken back to Sarah Palin and false statements about her seeing Russia from her kitchen, and the like, or Mitt Romney and the dog on the roof of his car. Becker had this to say: “In reality, the critical comedy people are used to from programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show promotes negative attitudes toward the comic target, while self-directed humor may actually prove to be a very useful and strategic tool for candidates looking to appeal to voters. Moving forward, politicians will need to become more skilled at deflecting humor directed at them and also be able to tell a good joke.” I don’t know about you, but I have been absolutely astonished at the number of people who have based their political opinions on the words of comedians. Talk about Kool-Aid! This sort of reasoning is Kool-Aid on steroids!” 3

As we enter a new Presidential election cycle, the rhetoric will once again take on everything from outright lies to much more subtle word games, all designed to elevate one candidate and reduce another—and this will happen largely through definition and/or framing. I urge you to be aware and pay close attention to the facts before coming to any conclusions or making any decision. If you are interested in all the ways information is managed, as well as the various psychological tricks employed to manipulate your every decision, and the history of deliberate deception, be sure to give Gotcha! The Subordination of Free Will a read.

Thanks for your time and Happy New Year!
Eldon Taylor

Eldon Taylor

Eldon Taylor
Provocative Enlightenment
NY Time Bestselling Author of Choices and Illusions
www.eldontaylor.com

Sources:

1. Staff. 2011. Style Manual & Writers Guide For Intelligence Publications.

2. Crow, J. 2014. “The CIA’s Style Manual & Writer’s Guide: 185 Pages of Tips for Writing Like a Spook.” Open Culture.

3. Taylor, E. 2015. Gotcha!  The Subordination of Free Will. Medical Lake, Wash: Progressive Awareness Research, Inc.