Our cognitive abilities may also be weakened by social media and smart devices. What once was a vibrant open society becomes instead a collection of multiple closed micro-societies cohabiting the same territory, subject to fracture and disarray. The regular bustle and commerce of the public square, the open debate in a public forum, the sense of a common res publica (public affairs) of a pluralistic society – these moderating influences may become weakened and attenuated, and our sensibilities more easily disturbed. And, as they drift apart, each is more likely to be disturbed or shocked whenever they come into contact. The danger is that the society at large may fragment into many such bubbles, each blissfully separate from the others. In short, we increasingly find ourselves in comfortable bubbles, where distasteful or disturbing news items, opinions, offerings, and persons are rapidly excluded – if they appear at all. The friends in our social network circles share these opinions too, as those who do not are quietly “un-friended” or leave on their own. Social networks present opinions that we heartily agree with. Coupons appear on our smartphone to encourage us to stop at the store that, by some apparent coincidence, is on our current route already. Advertisements are displayed that conform to our tastes, based on our previous purchases. The tablet computer serves us news stories that it knows we will like, because it wants to keep us engaged. Thus far, consumer societies have seen and accepted the benefits. And our search and e-commerce platforms use these tracking data to turn our preferences and beliefs into action – by offering stimuli to encourage us to buy things we might not otherwise have purchased. Our social media applications track what we like and believe our smartphones track where we go and who we spend time with our social networks track who we associate with and whom we exclude. The editorial you read does not know that you enthusiastically shared it with some of your closest friends. The advertisement you saw in the paper does not know that you went to the store to buy what was advertised your smartphone does. Several successive campaigns could be launched with the long-term objective of disrupting entire societies or alliances, by seeding doubts about governance, subverting democratic processes, triggering civil disturbances, or instigating separatist movements.Ī paper copy of your favorite newspaper does not know what news items you prefer to read. A single campaign could focus on the limited aim of preventing a military manoeuver from taking place as planned, or to force the alteration of a specific public policy. Or they can be strategic, with campaigns launched over the course of decades. The aims of cognitive warfare can be limited, with short time horizons. An opponent could conceivably subdue a society without resorting to outright force or coercion. In its extreme form, it has the potential to fracture and fragment an entire society, so that it no longer has the collective will to resist an adversary’s intentions. Waged successfully, it shapes and influences individual and group beliefs and behaviours to favour an aggressor’s tactical or strategic objectives. The aim is to change not only what people think, but how they think and act. In cognitive warfare, the human mind becomes the battlefield.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |