Comments for Strategic Communications: Speaking A Universal Language - Take 2 We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2007 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/04/strategic_commu_1.html Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:55:37 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2008 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification Strategic Communications: Speaking A Universal Language - Take 2 [Kat] In my original theoretical concept, I gave a simple schematic about how groups of people directly or indirectly influence others: Developing Effective Strategic Communications One of the necessities for developing a communication strategy is determining what the message is and what method or concept would be most conducive to delivering that message. Strategic Communications - Speaking a Universal Language The idea is to look for commonalities among communities and cultures that would align with our own. These commonalities could be leveraged to influence communities that, in turn, would influence individuals to act or not act in specific ways. I... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/04/strategic_commu_1.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/04/strategic_commu_1.html Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:13:58 -0600 Comment from Argent on 2008-04-29 Well finally. You said the real goal in answering Ry. The universal languages was just a red herring. What you really mean are terrorists that are a problem for the US. Now we're getting more specific. We can attempt to answer this one in a few ways. Starting with a question. How do US citizens associate with a shared concept in community building? Once you answer this... Do you believe there is no potential for terrorism born in the USA? I'm with you Kat on the tipping point. There could be an average tipping point for a particular subset but each group's dynamics will mean a different number for each er.. cell. My God Ry I felt like a scowling schoolmarm with a red marker looking at your last post. Ok you have a point on the MO theory. I was more afraid Kat was drifting into the fit the data to the theory zone. You won't escape Kat. For one thing Ry adores numbers he's prolly a closet Mathematician. And he will byte and subtract until you are devisable by zero. For another you can't actually escape the numbers because they are there and a very useful tool. Even in marketing. You still have to specify that community before you act. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/04/strategic_commu_1.html#comment-72588 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/04/strategic_commu_1.html#comment-72588 Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:27:40 -0600 Comment from kat-missouri on 2008-04-28 So...the real issue here is that I said anything about "numbers" at all when I should have stuck to relationships and spoke about "numbers" in a separate section where, indeed, my focus is on developing some kind of concept for the "tipping point" or left it out totally because it is too abstract and too many variables to define something that is largely about using marketing tools without identifying the market size because the market and its size depends on where you turn the big batman laser beam of the "message". that could be anything from 50 bedouins in the desert to 1 billion chinese. Thus, numbers only make since when you specify the community. So...if I just went back and re-wrote that to throw out the discussion of "numbers", yet pointed out that economics are a bad way to determine the probability of terrorism because it is a cross spectrum causality and much more related to human psyche, would you get off my @$$? Or is it forever out there and your robot mind won't let go? LOL http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/04/strategic_commu_1.html#comment-72577 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/04/strategic_commu_1.html#comment-72577 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:30:03 -0600 Comment from ry on 2008-04-28 Yes, I 'member what I wrote. I said math can describe human(or other) behavior. It can. YOu can easiy model *some* behaviors quite well mathematically. Predator prey interactions lend quite well. But everything? No. Rejecting it as insufficient is a bad move. IT's the problem of accepting a model as the thing itself. That occurs whether you try to understand a system based on the mores alone or by economics(or other math based models) alone. You can quite easily say that the Incas(or someone else, my S. American history be spotty) moved northward because the land became less robust, AND predict exactly where they went based on other numbers based things(like rainfall, land fertility, etc), and therefor predict where people will strike archealogical gold. It works. It describes a system very, very well. As potable water becomes a problem you can predict with high certainty where people will go(places with higher water stores). All numbers. No morality. No nothing but cold, hard, unfeeling numbers. I have not contradicted anything. You can't dismiss math based models because they work. You can't rely on qualitative models because at the exclusion of mathematical ones becase: a) they often fail for relying on acceptance of some axiom, which may or may not be true; b) you wind up, again, mistaking the model for the thing itself. Molecular Orbital theory is a model with which we try to understand bonding between atoms. It isn't the bonds themselves. What I'm saying is that you're producing your own MO theory and saying it *is* the thing you're modeling. Ixnay. Bad. Wrong. Look at your Crenshaw example(am I the only one seeing the room for a Heinlein reference or joke based on the name Crenshaw?). she gives peronality archetypes, but also agrees that there's a numerical component involved. One is not more important than the other. What I'm seeing is you slowly drifting to saying one is more important than the other, one has prominence. Synergy is a dirty word, scientifically speaking, but you're hinting that you're going to dis the concept, and thereby mistake a model for the thing itself. Ixnay. (Hee hee, now Kat's the one getting grilled and graded. ;) I'd be experiencing some Scheadenfreud right now if I didn't know I'd be getting the exact same treatment in a few weeks or days. Sucks being under the microscope, huh? Having things you didn't really consider relevant("look, I want to go over here, why are you guys mucking around over there?") used to point out what others percieve as weaknesses in your line of thought kinda blows, huh? I feelin' 'ya, sister.) http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/04/strategic_commu_1.html#comment-72574 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/04/strategic_commu_1.html#comment-72574 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:30:24 -0600 Comment from kat-missouri on 2008-04-28 These are defined as needs: the need for shelter, the need for food, the need for warmth, the need for procreation/other sexual drive. That's it. If you're looking for some unitary idea to describe it all, as a universal 'cause' for events, you're not likely to find it. First, just because I'm writing on developing a strat comm theory for global comms in a GWOT, it doesn't mean I am trying to find any definitive answer to anthropological questions that have teased scientist minds for centuries. The point is to find the most common way to associate over the largest part of the world's population using some sort of shared concept in community building: ie, building the global community that rejects terrorism. In the communities that are most likely to produce global terrorists, we have some shared values, stemming from our shared base of religion, our origins in the ME and other causes. It does not have to be perfect, it just has to be enough. Which leads me to your other comment:
Math's okay, but it does have limits(as does purely qualitative methods). Trying to find the exact tipping point in a human system, before rather than after the fact, is likley to drive you insane(and we don't want that because we like you).
You all remember what you wrote last week? I was the person rejecting math as a "language" in this case. Still, I'll note, if you've never read Gladwell's "tipping points", you should because, as I never elude to an exact number that create's this tipping point, neither does he. I don't think it can be found, actually. A tipping point can be created when you add 1+1. That second individual can act as a catalyst. At the same time, You could add three or four people and the tipping point won't be reached because there is no consensus. Everyone pulls in a different direction and no one has more influence than another. That movement would likely die out quickly. Gladwell's tipping points didn't focus on the number but on group dynamics including three types of personalities that are required to create a trend or "tipping point". It was in "origins of terrorims" that Crenshaw noted how the addition of members (numbers) might move a group to act when they hadn't previously. She didn't give an exact quantity. I agree with you to try to do so would be foolish because human emotion is tied to and part of the entire scheme. In short,I agree with you. Next question. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/04/strategic_commu_1.html#comment-72557 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/04/strategic_commu_1.html#comment-72557 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:46:42 -0600 Comment from kat-missouri on 2008-04-28 What seems to matter is the individuals connection to the ideal and the availability of the groups. If economics is a connection yes I get you but I think there are loads more ways to connect than that Um...I think you missed the part where I said I rejected economics as a common denominator because it is Marxist reductionism and did not reflect human experiences (or reflect emotions, etc, etc, etc). In fact, if it wasn't clear, that was the entire point of that long section: to reject any number, economics, etc as the impetuous to terrorism.
Looking at Abrahamic is really localizing the language. Also, despite the common roots of the Abrahamic religions, there is quite a significant movement from that origin in moral structure.
I admit, I chose to answer your question re: religion by noting the three Abrahamic religions because they stem from the same base and, together, constitute the largest block of religion across the world population. Thus, making their shared values the easiest or simplest to work with in making comparisons. I do believe that other religions do share other similar morals and values and did not exclude them for any other reason than the short cut to my point.
6. I don't really understand where you are going now. We go from moral benchmark of theft to tipping points. I agree with both but how does it relate? and how does it flow into terrorism it's like you missed a chapter or something.
Well, this post was an answer, not a part of the entire theory I was generating, though it should be incorporated. Still, that's why it jumped around. Last week you asked about religion and morality and Ry was dinging me on the math comment.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/04/strategic_commu_1.html#comment-72555 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/04/strategic_commu_1.html#comment-72555 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:28:56 -0600 Comment from Ledger on 2008-04-28 Speaking of education and science I have an OT question: I recall that SWWBO has a lot of experience in the IT field with considerable expertise with systems interface, networking and Microsoft products and so on (I know she doesn’t like Vista and MS Office 2007 – and I will not be using them). It would be a shame to let that kind of experience lay fallow. Maybe she can give me some tech pointers on a VPN problem that I have been struggling with (or point me in the right direction). I am working on a VPN test set-up using W2K3 SP2 Enterprise server(s) and XP Pro SP2 clients. I have gotten the PPTP VPN setup working but I am having difficulty with L2TP/IPSec VPN setup. I know that Argghhh! is probably not the place to discuss such topics. If SWWBO is interested in aiding me may be we could take the discussion over to her site. I would deeply appreciate any tech help from SWWBO (or a good web site that can help). http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/04/strategic_commu_1.html#comment-72554 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/04/strategic_commu_1.html#comment-72554 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 07:38:24 -0600 Comment from ry on 2008-04-28 Kat, there's some problems here, me thinks. The similarities thing. There've been some very smart(and often very arrogant, like Meade) people who've gone looking for these commonalities for at least 150 years. What they've been able to come up is: shelter, food, warmth, sex. That's it. When you get down to it, and rigorously look at this stuff, that is it. You can find 'primitive' socities(deep Africa, deep Amazon) where theft isn't about to tear the society apart: it's El Heffe's due as biggest and strongest. In a sense, what Heffe can steal and give to his harem, right hand man, etc, is what keeps it together, what keeps it functioning. Theft is necessary and a glue. Hence, why whenever anyone really gets down to it, there are only a few true commonalities between societies. These are defined as needs: the need for shelter, the need for food, the need for warmth, the need for procreation/other sexual drive. That's it. If you're looking for some unitary idea to describe it all, as a universal 'cause' for events, you're not likely to find it. We can't even do it for very simple systems like hydrogen molecules(either qualitatively or quantitavely) and now you're going to come up with a universal theory of human behavio(u)r? I applaud the boldness, but damn, gina. There are some things that can and cannot be described by mathematical models. What can(select examples)? Movement. Reasons for having many offspring in certain conditions(like pre-industrialized societies). What it can't: why people believe in a religion, that there is no god(s)(set theory says you cannot make this claim, you don't know every element in the set(the universe)). YOu can and cannot describe things with economics. Depends on what you're talking about. Be warned: people have gone before you in trying to do this(Kennedy with The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, and he turned out to be very wrong on many things because he only looked at economics). I'm with Argent/Trias: universal ideas/absolutes are tricky things. They aren't as easy as a lot of people think. Look at the mess we wind up with schisms within the class of people who adopted Hegel's "Philosophy of Right". Even with such as that there's no way you can predict their behavio(u)r despite a very rigid belief system. dangerous ground Kat. Some things in life don't have a single cause, and forcing a system you're studying into such an arrangment can be very wrong. It works in labs because we *can* force things in such a way as only one variable can actually vary. But when you get out there on the cutting edge, sometimes you can't. Reduction is a tool of scientific method, but over reduction is an abuse. Math's okay, but it does have limits(as does purely qualitative methods). Trying to find the exact tipping point in a human system, before rather than after the fact, is likley to drive you insane(and we don't want that because we like you). Now, for some sleep.(snore) http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/04/strategic_commu_1.html#comment-72553 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/04/strategic_commu_1.html#comment-72553 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:17:32 -0600 Comment from Argent on 2008-04-28 1. I am not nearly as certain education yields critical thinking skills. Rarely is schooling teaching concepts like problems solving, critical evaluation, philosophy etc and even higher studies like University are weak in this area. It's my opinion the majority of school work is about acceptance of facts... much like loading a memory bank with data. Recall the times tables, recall the constitution, recall the theory of evolution, recall the biblical teaching, recall the musical notes etc. The exams then test the quality of memory recall but not the ability to think. In general I don't think there really is all that much personal resistance worldwide to indoctrination into any kind of movement, concept or ideal. West or East North or South people join ideologies all the time. Religions, militaries, peace movements, charities, scams, pubs, terrorists, political parties, clubs, hell blogs when you get right down to it. What seems to matter is the individuals connection to the ideal and the availability of the groups. If economics is a connection yes I get you but I think there are loads more ways to connect than that. 2. I think you view economics the wrong way around sometimes. I seem to recall this from an earlier discussion about China-Taiwan possibilities. You view economics as a cause. But I take the position economics can at times be an effect instead of a cause. Here you are searching for economics as a cause of terrorism. But the economic status of the terrorist may well not be a cause but instead an effect from other things. let me give two little things which might help explain my view because I realize what i just typed might be hard to swallow. One is that the US might not be an advanced free nation because it is rich. It may be that the US is rich because it is an advanced free nation. Or if one looks at my own situation of economic ditch dwelling one can say lack of money caused me to be depressed this that or the other. Or one can say I am poor because I am depressed this that or the other. No doubt economics can be a cause but I'm hoping you're able to see that this rule isn't absolute and the possibility that economics may be an effect instead of a cause as well. 3. I think you absolutely right about the moral line crossing being what we're seeing. The easier targets morally like US soldiers etc got too hard and the movement to soft targets was fraught with moral peril. Even US solders are getting more difficult morally. There seems to be an improvement with community connect now though it's not easy for me to be sure not actually being there. However I do not underestimate the mutability of this enemy. 4. Well my words were really quite general for one thing. I was including all world religions with emphasis on the universality of the language. Looking at Abrahamic is really localizing the language. Also, despite the common roots of the Abrahamic religions, there is quite a significant movement from that origin in moral structure. Yes there are some basic morals which might be said to be universal languages. 5. Actually the more i think about it the more I'm convinced the core fuel of morals are the concepts behind survival at a social level. Which also explains why individual survival can be quite immoral at times. Yes this covers lots of areas. Maybe a universal language is survival. Certainly something that war talks. 6. I don't really understand where you are going now. We go from moral benchmark of theft to tipping points. I agree with both but how does it relate? and how does it flow into terrorism it's like you missed a chapter or something. The part of the community that needs to be effected is simple I thought. The communities which are a source of and sustainance for terrorists. On the very last sentence I am very wary of ideas of an absolute. Stopping every last possibility is an absolute. It's my experience as well total eradication is one of the hardest goals to achieve and usually destined for failure and/or waste. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/04/strategic_commu_1.html#comment-72552 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/04/strategic_commu_1.html#comment-72552 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:08:02 -0600