you should write your thoughts to me in an open letter on your substack! that way others can participate (and also when I respond, others will find your substack, win win!)
Saying that coercive research without consent is good because it brings to light the psyops already being done in secret is a broken window fallacy. Not sure if that's what you're doing at all, but it's an important point. You can't say the murderers of 9/11 were good because they prevent it from happening again because now, if someone tries the same thing, they'll be tackled before they even reach the cockpit.
Michael Smith misunderstands, I think, the meaning of objectivity. It's not about being inhuman but about recognizing and minimizing the impact of biases.
I can agree with you on transparency, but I heartily disagree with anything exonerating bad methodology. I see later that you're not, but it still bears saying. This should be done like virus research: be public and transparent about proofs of concept. ie, this platform let me post this machine generated post with the potential to influence people, not, I let my machine interact in comment threads and fool people for days or weeks into thinking their cohort thinks a certain erroneous way.
Menome. The suffix is nome, not ome, because it's about naming something. Took me about 15 seconds to figure out what you were getting at with that term without looking at the footnote.
We definitely live in a hostile memetic landscape.
Yes!! People are only so easily psyop’d because they haven’t ever heard of memetic engineering.
They thus haven’t developed antibodies to attack vectors which they aren’t aware exists & don’t even know to watch out for
Once I exited my first “cult” & gained awareness of this dimension it was indescribably easier to spot future currents & dodge them or flow in & out.
🤯
This is the future
I loved how you framed open memetics as cultural infrastructure, actively shaping narratives with transparency instead of stealth.
Another type of social experiment which isn't done in stealth but is bad is like the Stanford prisoners experiment.
This is a topic that really needs to be out there, thank you for sharing
If it's fine with you, we can have a longer conversation about this inbox, since I have more to say about it
you should write your thoughts to me in an open letter on your substack! that way others can participate (and also when I respond, others will find your substack, win win!)
Okay I might do that or write it as a post and share it with you
Saying that coercive research without consent is good because it brings to light the psyops already being done in secret is a broken window fallacy. Not sure if that's what you're doing at all, but it's an important point. You can't say the murderers of 9/11 were good because they prevent it from happening again because now, if someone tries the same thing, they'll be tackled before they even reach the cockpit.
Michael Smith misunderstands, I think, the meaning of objectivity. It's not about being inhuman but about recognizing and minimizing the impact of biases.
I can agree with you on transparency, but I heartily disagree with anything exonerating bad methodology. I see later that you're not, but it still bears saying. This should be done like virus research: be public and transparent about proofs of concept. ie, this platform let me post this machine generated post with the potential to influence people, not, I let my machine interact in comment threads and fool people for days or weeks into thinking their cohort thinks a certain erroneous way.
Menome. The suffix is nome, not ome, because it's about naming something. Took me about 15 seconds to figure out what you were getting at with that term without looking at the footnote.
We definitely live in a hostile memetic landscape.