The Rules of Disinformation

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Thanks to Long Lance for this link.


What does the disinformation artist do?



A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate... It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluations... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the (evaluation) process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation



How does the disinfo artist do his/her job?



Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
25. Vanish

Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist

1. Avoidance
2. Selectivity
3. Coincidental
4. Teamwork
5. Anti-conspiratorial
6. Artificial Emotions
7. Inconsistent
8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant




...To be honest, I know I have some of these traits and follow some of these rules - quite innocently I promise. I've learned everything I know here at ATS.


Seriously though, sometimes people do obstruct productive discussion quite innocently. So how do we distinguish the human from the professional? The run-of-the-mill eccentric awhole from the twitbot plant?

I guess the key factor is history - How long have they been around? How often have they put themselves on the line, if ever? What do they support? How consistent are they, in the long term? What feeds their persistence - is it passion, or programmed prejudice?


...What do you think? Am I missing something here?






posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I am trying to collect ATS posts on this subject - here's another:


Brainwashing: Changing Attitudes and Behavior.



Coercive persuasion and thought reform are alternate names for programs of social influence capable of producing substantial behavior and attitude change through the use of coercive tactics, persuasion, and/or interpersonal and group-based influence manipulations (Schein 1961; Lifton 1961). Such programs have also been labeled "brainwashing" (Hunter 1951), a term more often used in the media than in scientific literature. However identified, these programs are distinguishable from other elaborate attempts to influence behavior and attitudes, to socialize, and to accomplish social control. Their distinguishing features are their totalistic qualities (Lifton 1961), the types of influence procedures they employ, and the organization of these procedures into three distinctive subphases of the overall process (Schein 1961; Ofshe and Singer 1986). The key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes are:

1. The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual's sense of self to promote compliance

2. The use of an organized peer group

3. Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity

4. The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified

Thought-reform programs have been employed in attempts to control and indoctrinate individuals, societal groups (e.g., intellectuals), and even entire populations. Systems intended to accomplish these goals can vary considerably in their construction.


Coercive Persuasion and Attitude Change. Encyclopedia of Sociology Volume 1, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York
By Richard J. Ofshe, Ph.D. Online Here




posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
You see many of those tactics used on both sides of every issue on ATS.

In reality, they aren’t really “Disinformation tactics,’ so much as they are simply bad debating techniques.


[edit on 16-1-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
From Emmett_Dabru.

"In order to be correct, or to progressively become more correct, you must be willing to question what you think you already know. If you are unwilling to question something, then most likely you are being controlled through that concept.

Visualize any concept. Then look at that concept from a 3rd person point of view. Relax your emotions while you search for all the false assumptions. Otherwise you may not see them. Look for the biases, the unsubstantiated conclusions, the over generalizations, and the parts that depend on something else altogether. If you do this honestly, looking at everything, then you will find these inadvertent assumptions all throughout your mind.

Whenever a way of looking at something is fed to you, usually along with images and/or a story, you are then likely to accept into your mind imprinted visualization about what you saw. This happens all the time, day after day. Especially for those who watch a lot of TV, read a lot, or interact with strong social circles. These sources can be used as a carrier for preprogrammed inadvertent assumptions."

ATS: Inadvertent Assumption

About Doublethink today: Deception By Language: Creating Stereotypes And Destroying Meaning

The Power of Stupidity Contains links to The Stupidity of Power; The Vicious Circle of Stupidity; Three Friends of Stupidity (Ignorance, Fear and Habit); Simple Thoughts on Complexity; The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity, more.

More on Doublethink, link from Roy Robinson Stewart: Orwellian Doublethink In London

ATS: Orwellian Doublethink in War against Terror



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You many of those tactics used on both sides of every issue on ATS.

In reality, they aren’t really “Disinformation tactics,’ so much as they are simply bad debating techniques.


I agree that oftentimes that is the case. But I also think that ATS is an important source of information, a "pulse" of the nation, AND a venue for disseminating information - so we will see our share of disinformation and other agents.

Information is a commodity - to be protected and marketed in our brave new world - and the Internet is the direct portal. We are experiencing a complete revision of advertising, marketing, and opinion making techniques.

The most successful advertising and marketing companies no longer make ads - they send their minions into the Internet to shape opinion by 'leaking' information, arguing and playing directly with peoples' minds. ...And that's before we even consider neuro-marketing programs.



But back to debating. Here are a few useful links about debating rules and regs, dood techniques, bad techniques and more.

From Memory Shock - a great site on logical fallacies. Each item in this quote links to sub-categories and text (on the site) - I have edited out most sub-categories.




The Logical Fallacies Index

Fallacies of Distraction

* From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false
* Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn

Appeals to Motives in Place of Support

Changing the Subject

* Attacking the Person:
* Appeal to Authority:

Inductive Fallacies

* Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population
* Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole
* False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar
* Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary
* Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration

Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms

* Accident: a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception
* Converse Accident : an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply

Causal Fallacies

* Post Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other
* Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause
* Insignificant: one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect
* Wrong Direction: the direction between cause and effect is reversed
* Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect

Missing the Point

* Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises
* Irrelevant Conclusion: an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion
* Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument

Fallacies of Ambiguity

* Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings
* Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations
* Accent: the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says

Category Errors

Non Sequitur

* Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A
* Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B
* Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true

Syllogistic Errors

Fallacies of Explanation

Fallacies of Definition

The Logical Fallacies Index.



Also see wikipedia, from supercheetah: Logical fallacy

ATS: Arguing: logical fallacies to avoid



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   


But I also think that ATS is an important source of information, a "pulse" of the nation, AND a venue for disseminating information - so we will see our share of disinformation and other agents.


LMAO! Man, that's gotta be worth something right there! Does ATS have an award for the most funniest statement of the month?

Look at all this "important" source of information. You can find it anywhere on the internet. Where do you think half this stuff come's from? People citing other people's information. No one here on ATS has posted anything new that hasn't been seen somewhere else online, in the news, in a book, in a newspaper, in grandma's panties drawer.

Now tell me why would someone be interested in some information that people have been talking about all over the internet? Why would ATS be so important that any self respecting disinfo agent would bother wasting his/her time here? The only thing important about ATS is it's a community. There's nothing new here.

Beside's, already been covered. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not to mention you were the first person to reply to that thread lol

[edit on 16-1-2006 by Produkt]

[edit on 16-1-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Produkt, do you think you can discuss a topic without the condecension? Try it please.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt

Look at all this "important" source of information. You can find it anywhere on the internet. Where do you think half this stuff come's from? People citing other people's information. No one here on ATS has posted anything new that hasn't been seen somewhere else online, in the news, in a book, in a newspaper, in grandma's panties drawer.



Irrespective of how old the junk in your granny's drawers is, there is plenty of original work here on ATS.

For instance, we've got one member whose astonishing claim to fame is spelling words phonetically; and representing the south end of a northbound jackass so well, some of us had to look twice.

Oh yeah - I'm impressed!

[edit on 1-16-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
...To be honest, I know I have some of these traits and follow some of these rules - quite innocently I promise. I've learned everything I know here at ATS.



I know what you mean there, when people have accused me of being a dis-information agent and I have looked at things like that list, it is startling how many of the traits and practices are used by myself.
Obsviouly I can't expect people to just take my word for it when I clarify the fact I am not a dis-information agent and that I do not work for the governement, but knowing this to be the case myself it does make me wonder a few things...
As has been said, a lot of the practices are used by any person, as Howard pointed out it's bad practice, but still it is not enough to go on to be able to label someone one way or another for sure. With the exception of things like getting people killed of course...

It does make me wonder quite how much I and others may be subjected to some sort of brainwashing, not mind ray crap but more 'normal' day to day techniques. The Derren Brown show "The Heist" if genuine, points out quite how easy this is without the use of any technology or drugs, simply by simple methods that can be employed by people in normal day to day life without even realising it. This may of course mean that any brainwashing we are subject to may not even be delibrate, but a consequence of our environment and the actions and attitudes people take.

One also considers the possibility that the list itself may be some form of dis-inofrmation in itself. When looked at objectively it is obvious as stated that a lot of the traits are common anyway, so there are three logical possibilities regarding the list itself..

1) The author is misguided and has failed to consider the general psycology of people.

2) The article is written tongue in cheek and should not be taken so seriously or used as a formal set of guiidelines..

3) It is written in order to confuse people and try and disrupt debate, I have seen the very article in question turn debates into a fight on who works for the government or not. It is highly efficent even if not intentional, as it gives ammunition to people who use it as some sort of guideline to accuse people who disagree with them of being the 'enemy'.

This means that we even have to question information on dis-information, and the possiblity that it is infact dis-information in itself.

[edit on 16-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Don't worry, mate, it's all in your name. People named Smith are commonly wearing black suit with sunglasses. That's a dead give-away.

And for my part, if I ever posted dis-information, it's because I was misinformed. I'm a misled robot, not a govt agent.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
"There are no universally agreed-upon definitions of misinformation and disinformation, but this is how the terms are used on this Web site"
phnompenh.usembassy.gov...



Given that the description of this Generic forum area is
"A place to analyze what appears to be organized disinformation efforts"
it would be natural to question the appearance of a formal, complex set of rules.
What is the real intent ? Do these rules have merit ? What are the real meanings
of the words associated with disinformation, misinformation, and etc.


"if I ever posted dis-information, it's because I was misinformed" == ufia

I believe you have the heart of this issue there. Is this discussion itself a bit of misinformation ?
Do we agree on the meaning of these terms ? How do we arrive at such an exotic set of rules
for something that seems so ill-defined ?

I would think the best way to approach a solution to disinformation is to give specific examples
of who did what to whom, how it worked, and then arrive at preventative measures.
But maybe I am not "with the program" yet. Could it be that what is really needed is a complex
set of rules that includes everybody ? I think I see, this is a "noone left behind" thing.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing
I would think the best way to approach a solution to disinformation is to give specific examples of who did what to whom, how it worked, and then arrive at preventative measures.
...Could it be that what is really needed is a complex
set of rules that includes everybody ? I think I see, this is a "noone left behind" thing.


Our culture revolves around disinformation - it is the basis of our adversial justice system, and lawyers for example, excel at the practise.

This thread is here to create a central list of ATS threads on disinformation, debating, arguing etc - so we're all on the same page, and can learn not only to defend ourselves, but also,

TA DA

develop better truth seeking personal habits.


And so people like me can take a quick refresher course without having to search all over the site or the net.




posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   
"This thread is here to create a central list of ATS threads on disinformation............so we're all on the same page" == soficrow

I really didnt expect an answer, so thank you. If it is to be useful to me, I would suggest the following short definitions.

Disinformation - intentional deception

Misinformation - unintentional deception

Your last sentence should be developed more. It has incredible potential if standardized and laborized by the members at large.





new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join