Month: December 2012

Let Your Freak Flag Fly!

Rilaly10 Comments

“Some of the times you just gotta let your Freak Flag fly,” my aunt said to her brother. I had no idea what they were talking about, and I didn’t really care, but I didn’t think any definition of this otherwise illusory idiom could remedy my dad’s issues. If Freak Flag is actually a thing and not something my aunt just made up, I thought, my dad may have been as far from having a Freak Flag as anyone on Earth. His primary goal in life was to fit in, and he did anything and everything he could to make that happen. My aunt was the opposite. She did everything she could to stand out as a hip, cutting edge, and appear young, or her definitions of all of the above. She knew more about the hip artists and songs in Billboard Top 40 than I ever have, she wore hip, cutting edge clothing better suited to women ten years younger than her, and she dropped whatever hip terms she heard young people say. When she dropped the term Freak Flag I thought it was yet another one of her embarrassing attempts to appear hip, but that particular phrase stuck with me for whatever reason. I never used it, but when I later heard someone on a hip, top-rated television show say it, I knew something was afoot. Then, one of my friends said it in school, and a week later I began hearing it everywhere.

“Where did you hear that phrase?” I asked my friend.

“Dude, I don’t know. I’ve been saying it for decades,” he said. Unbeknownst to me, this was the key to keeping it cool in the phraseology universe, for no one ever seems to know where they hear hip, cutting edge terminology first. To be fair, it can be difficult to remember where we first heard a phrase we’ve been saying for a time, but purveyors of this particular phrase appeared to conveniently forget where they heard it to leave the impression that they started it.

There’s apparently a lot of prestige wrapped up in starting a phrase, and if someone gets a taste of it, they don’t give it up willingly. Whatever the case is, when obsessively curious types pursue such matters, we often receive everything from blank faces to evasive and defensive responses. Even if the user just started using the phrase last February, those who are evasive and defensive want us to think they’ve been saying it for so long that they dismiss all questions about its origins as uncool.

If we found a truly reflective individual who didn’t mind talking about the first time they heard the phrase, it might result in a humdrum response, “My Cousin Ralphie is da shiznit, and when I heard bra say it I wanted his awesome sauce all over me.” If this individual were that honest, they might run the risk of being so over as to be drummed out of the in-crowd, for the clique might deem that confession a violation of the binary, unspoken agreement those in the in-crowd have designed for the world of phraseology. In their world, users want their audience to consider them the originator of the phrase, and anyone who insists on pursuing this line of interrogation runs the risk of being drummed out on an “If you have to ask …” basis.

Another unspoken rule in the hip, phraseology universe is that we better hurry up and use the terms we enjoy saying as often as we can before a kool kat steps in to declare that the days of using the phrase are now over. “Stop saying that. I’m trying to get the word out that that is so over. Tell your friends.” We might be disappointed to learn that we are no longer able to use words, phrases, or idioms that we enjoy using, but we know that when kool kats step in to warn us that it’s over, it’s a serious blow in this artificial architecture, and we know that by continuing to use such a phrase, we run the risk of being so over. This begs a question to the arbiters of language who declare they’ve been saying this for decades, how is it that you never encountered some kool kat who declared your favorite phrase so over in that time span? Did you ignore them, and if you did, why should I listen to you?

A work associate of mine attempted to play the kool kat by correcting me in front of a group of people. “Dude, stop saying that,” he said inadvertently using the tired phrase to end phrases. “I’m trying to get the word out that that phrase is over. Tell your friends.” Anytime we hear someone issue such a condemnation, it’s human nature to assume that it’s rooted in something the speaker learned from a person with some authority on the matter. In my experience, however, most of these self-professed arbiters of language consider starting a hip phrase fine but ending one divine. Those with no standing in the hierarchy of cool often take it upon themselves to issue such a condemnation without knowing anything more on the matter than anyone else, but they hope that by pushing us down a notch they might improve their standing in the hierarchy.

Like most of those in the lowest stratum of this hierarchy, I knew nothing about this confusing world of using hip, insider, kool kat language, so I was in no position to question my work associate, but by my calculations this feller was a doofus. He was such a complete doofus that I would no sooner consider seeking advice from him on language than I would his words of advice on dating. I still don’t know if this fella assumed a level of authority on this matter based on the idea that he considered me inferior, of if he heard this news from a more authoritative figure, but I decided he did nothing to earn a seat on my personal arbitration board. That situation led me to wonder how we determine our arbiters of words and phrases. My guess is that most people will not heed such advice from just anyone, as that might unveil their status in this hierarchy. My guess is that we make discerning choices based on superficial, bullet point requirements we have for those issuing them? Put another way, if the doofus was more attractive and a little less chubby, I may have been more amenable to his guidance on the matter.

✽✽✽

For fact checkers, a decent search on “Let your Freak Flag fly” suggests that it first appeared in a Jimi Hendrix song If 6 was 9 in 1967. It was later popularized in a David Crosby song Almost Cut my Hair that he wrote for the Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young album Déjà vu. Due to the fact that these first appearances occurred in an artistic venue, however, we can guess that the phrase made its way through the “in-crowd” circuit long before Hendrix or Crosby used it in their songs.  

The Urban Dictionary defines “Letting Your Freak Flag Fly” as: “A characteristic, mannerism, or appearance of a person, either subtle or overt, which implies unique, eccentric, creative, adventurous or unconventional thinking.” 2) “Letting loose, being down with one’s cool self, preferred usage to occur in front of a group of strangers. Your inner freak that wants to come out, but often is suppressed by social anxiety.” 3) Unrestrained, unorthodox or unconventional in thinking, behavior, manners, etc. One who espouses radical, nonconformist or dissenting views and opinions that are outside the mainstream. When traveling through the bible belt of the U.S., it’s best not to let your freak flag fly high. Otherwise, you’ll be harassed and attacked by these backwater, backward thinking theocrats.

Typical Freak Flag Flyers make very specific decisions to avoid titles. They tend to be abstract thinkers who believe they fly high over those of us who believe in nouns (i.e. people, places, and things). Freak Flag Flyers tend to know more about those nouns than the average person, “Because those people haven’t done their homework.” Some Freak Flag Flyers base their outlier status on anecdotal information of these nouns to whom others swear allegiance, on the idea that if we knew what they, the Freak Flag Flyers know, we would be just as sophisticated in our skepticism about allegiances.

Most people fly under a flag: Americans fly under the Stars and Stripes; the Irish fly under the Irish tricolor; and the British fly under the Union Jack. There are some people, however, who fly under no flag, and they eagerly provide this information to anyone who asks. Don’t expect them to admit to flying under a Freak Flag either, for the very essence of flying under a Freak Flag is designed to give its flyer an open-ended, free lifestyle persona that doesn’t conform to societal definitions such as allegiance or definition … Even if such a definition extends itself to a Freak Flag. They aren’t proud members of a country, political party, or a coalition of freaks. They’re just Tony, and any attempt we make to define them as anything but Tony –based on what they do and say– will say more about us and our need for definition, than it does them. Freak Flag Flyers tend to be moral relativists who ascribe to some libertarian principles when those political principles adhere to matters they find pleasing –those who suggest, as Dave Mason did, “There ain’t no good guys, there ain’t no bad guys. There’s only you and me and we just disagree”- but they tend to distance themselves from economic libertarian ideals, for that might result in too much libertarianism.

Some Freak Flag Flyers raise their flags in political milieus, but most Freak Flags involve simple eccentricities and peculiarities. An individual who prefers to listen to complicated and obscure music could be said to fly a Freak Flag in that regard, but they usually keep that information close to the vest when their more normal family members and friends are around. An individual who enjoys various concoctions of food, philosophies, and other assorted, entertainment mediums could be said to have a Freak Flag, but most of these people live otherwise normal lives. We can have a Freak Flag without being a freak, in other words, but the general term Freak Flag is reserved for those activities we engage in and those preferences we have that could be embarrassing if they found their way back to our normal friends and family members.

Even if we don’t have what others might call a Freak Flag, we can identify with the mindset of those who once dared to let theirs fly. Now that we’re all normal and stable, we might not remember the days when we strove for some sort of definition, or we may be embarrassed by it, but most of us can recall a day when we dared to be different.

A Freak Flag Flying friend of mine, a Dan, worked in a Fortune 500 corporation, and he was a corporate joe from head to upper calf. To maintain some semblance of his Freak Flag status, however, Dan wore a wide variety of loud socks and skater shoes that appeared out of place with the rest of his business casual attire that it was impossible not to notice. I’m not sure if it enhanced Dan’s Freak Flag flyer status or took away from it, but he did have flames of fire on those Converse Chuck Taylors, and he wore these notoriously short-lived Chuck Taylors for about a decade, so he must’ve purchased them on an annual basis to keep his preferred characterization alive.

When I asked Dan why he wore that ensemble, he said, “I just like it” in the typical “I’m just Tony” Freak Flag Flyer vein. I dug deeper, of course, and I saw a man who wanted to succeed in the corporate climate by being everything his boss wanting him to be while not being a complete corporate sellout. He wanted the best of both worlds, and he thought some flames on his feet allowed him to let Freak Flag fly.

I’ve met the “I’m just Tony” Freak Flag Flyers who can’t articulate their need to fly one, and they attempt to nullify any questions about their nature by asking you why you think they’re different. Some think we’re putting them on trial, and we are, sometimes. Sometimes, we’re just interested in their essence. I’ve met others who were just different people, and they were quite comfortable draping themselves in a Freak Flag. They taught me that the ultimate definition of a Freak Flag flyer is a relative concept defined by the individual. It’s almost the complete opposite of my aunt’s attempts to be younger and hipper than her peers, as the true Freak Flag flyer does not engage in Freak Flag flying, they just are who they are in a manner that is more organic than any character my aunt might dream up.

The Quantifiable Lightness of Being

RilalyLeave a comment

Is one life more important than another? It depends on who you ask, according to author Douglas Hofstadter. In his book, I am a Strange Loop, Douglas Hofstadter attempts to philosophically solve this question by suggesting that all living beings have a soul. According to his theory, certain beings, have less of a soul than others, because they have less recognition of being alive than other beings. He quantifies the theory through a series of ratings that leads to a scoring of that living being’s soul. He uses the term “light count” to describe this recognition that we’ll call Hofstadters. This term is the over-arching term he uses to describe the quantifiable power of the soul.

LoopDouglas Hofstadter provides the reader what he calls a personal “consciousness cone” that he believes describes the level of consciousness a being has of its own existence. He uses the adult human as an indicator, and he gives them 100 Hofstadters, because the adult human has the greatest recognition of his and her own life. The dog has 80 Hofstadters, the rabbit has 60, the chicken has 50, the mosquito has 30, and the atom has zero Hofstadters. Hofstadter lists the atom at the bottom, as a result of the fact that the atom has the least recognition of its own life, and the least sense of consciousness than any other life form. He does not explain, however, how he can quantify the characteristics of the rabbit higher than the chicken, or why he rates the bee over the mosquito. The reader might have numerous opinions on this, such as the bee accomplishing more necessary tasks, and a resulting honing of instincts, but the consciousness cone seems rather arbitrary in places.

The Hostadters given to adult humans are more relative than any other being however, for the adult human has more ability to increase their soul’s light count, and damage it, than any other being. Some humans, Hofstadter writes, can achieve a score higher than 100 Hofstadters, depending on how much meaning they bring to the definition of life, and the manner in which they change the definition of life for the better for others. Jesus of Nazareth and Mahatma Gandhi could be said to be two people who changed the definition many people have of life for the better, and they would achieve more than 100 on Hofstadter’s scale. Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung, on the other hand, diminished the value of life for many, and in general, through their mass slaughter. They will spend the rest of their after-life rectifying the damage they did to life on Earth, and as a result they could be given a score less than one hundred, and presumably less than zero, based on their number of violations against the value of life. 

If Hofstadter kept his scoring process broad in this manner, we might not have a problem with it in the micro, but like most modern philosophers he can’t help but bring modern politics into the discussion. He begins by begging the reader to understand that the term “the soul” he will refer to in future passages, is not “the soul” most normally associated with religion. This distinction is made, presumably, to allow Hofstadter to keep a foot in the collegial halls of academe he achieved with his first book. Hofstadter suggests that his version of the soul is more of a sense of consciousness, a lightness of being, a sense of self, and a sense of consciousness about their life. In Hofstadter’s definition of a soul, the dog has a soul, and that soul is more powerful than the mosquito’s, because the dog has more of a sense of its own life than a mosquito does, but it does not have the sense of life, or philosophy, that the adult human does.

Next, Hofstadter suggests that those adult humans who would kill a man, via Capital Punishment, have less of a soul than those who abhor such activity. This is particularly the case, suggests Hofstadter, if the death row inmate is screaming for his life in the “dead man walking” trip to the gas chamber. So, if the “dead man walking” goes quietly, with lowered eyebrows, dark lighting, and a scary soundtrack, the people leading him to the gas chamber presumably have less to worry in their accumulation of Hofstadters in their light count. One would think that Hofstadter would be point blank in his scale that if you take a life, with malice and forethought, you owe something to the general definition of the value of life that cannot be recovered, and you are destined to a less than zero existence, but for Hofstadter emotion, and remorse, appear to assist in giving that soul a greater “light count” than the unapologetic. The latter half of this paragraph involves interpretation for Hofstadter makes no specific distinction between the two, except to say that the henchmen involved in the death sentence are the ones who suffer by scale. The reader is also left to wonder if Hofstadter might be influenced by the theatrical drama some movies bring to the dead man walking scenario.

Hofstadter then suggests that a two-year-old child has less of a light count than a twenty-year-old, since that twenty-year-old has had more time to build the Hofstadters in their light count, but he writes that he does not tread lightly on the life of a two-year-old since we must recognize the potential that the two-year-old has of building Hofstadters throughout the course of their life versus the mosquito’s limited capacity to build them. The natural progression the reader might make is that the human embryo has an equal potential for building light count, but Hofstadter states that the human embryo has no sense of its own life. He does not however discuss the word potential in the natural manner one would assume he would in conjunction with his statement that the two-year-old, but he equates the human embryo with the atom on the non-entity scale, aside the atom. Hofstadter does not explain the discrepancy. The only conclusion the reader can make is that if Hofstadter has an explanation it is either nakedly hypocritical or inconvenient to his politics. 

There is also no discussion of the potential diminished Hofstadters an aborting mother may incur as a result of deciding to abort this potential light source, as in Hofstadter’s view it is not a potential light source. This is a non-issue in Hofstadter’s narrative. With capital punishment Hofstadter draws disparities between those that would lead a screaming man to his death versus the ones that lead an unrepentant man to his death, but he doesn’t draw any distinctions between the women who would take the potential life that would be screaming if the woman gave it the chance to become a light source outside the womb, and the woman that allows the innocent, potential light source to live. He states that Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung diminished their Hofstadter’s by taking millions of potential light sources from the Earth, but he does not bother to explain the discrepancy. 

If his inconsistencies were a mere sin of omission, we would have nothing to write about, but Hofstadter dives right into the fray and develops hypocrisies that require analysis for their hypocritical lack of objectivity. He fails to draw such lines of distinction along philosophical parallels, in other words, and he loses points in an objectivity count with these inconsistencies.

Hofstadter does have an interesting, and unique, take on the meaning of life. Most readers will whole-heartedly agree with the general premise he outlines, but when we agree are we helping Hofstadter establish a general level of authority that allows him to make philosophical leaps with which we might otherwise disagree? When he ventures out into the particulars that support this theory, this reader can’t help but think that Hofstadter’s key is less about teaching how to achieve a sense of philosophical purity and more about political proselytizing about what he considers the negligible affects of abortion on one’s soul versus the detrimental affects capital punishment can have on the participants, and the detrimental affects eating other animals can have on humans.

Do these same detrimental affects plague the animal kingdom? Hofstadter conveniently fails to list carnivores of the wild in his consciousness cone. He only lists herbivores. This omission allows him to sidestep the argument about the penalties lower life forms (lower than the human), such as lions and tigers and bears, should receive for eating other animals. Do the vegetarian panda bear or koala bear have more Hofstadters than the grizzly bear, because the grizzly prefers to eat fish and deer? Does the grizzly receive an asterisk in this equation, because she is less conscious of the potential light source she is destroying when she eats the deer? Is the human punished on equal level, or do we account for the fact that the human is more cognizant of the potential light source it is destroying, and the the lion, the tiger, and the alligator operate more on instinct? Hofstadter probably knows that any suggestion that meat-eating animals are more evil for eating meat might make his theory appear cartoonish. Hofstadter appears to focus his argument on meat-eating humans to provide himself more virtue among those humans who enjoy eating meat? Is he using his theory to proselytize the virtues of veganism? If not, the omission of tigers, bears, and alligators from his list seems, at the very least, a purposeful omission that Hofstadter cannot square. 

The author informs us that one of the keys to living the compassionate life is defined by placing spiders one finds in his home outside the door, in a gentle, compassionate manner. He does this to celebrate, honor, and respect the idea that lower forms of life have a soul. He implicitly states that you’ll know that you’ve achieved his level of heightened awareness if you’re so overcome by the infinite reserves of compassion in your system if you one day pass out as a result of handing a test gerbil to a research scientist for its use. This revelation informs us, perhaps implicitly, that one of the keys to being wonderful, or accumulating a greater light count, involves not only performing charitable deeds, but publicly declaring them for the publicity one receives for doing so. What’s the point of repeating such incidents, unless you use it to lubricate the reed on your own trumpet? 

Hofstadter’s attempt to toot his own horn is no different than any author in any genre or argument. We all believe we are living a more virtuous life, and we all try to encourage others to see the light. The question is, as always, do our arguments lean objective or subjective? 

Some readers may find Hofstadter’s writing a breath of fresh air, and others may view it nakedly transparent, but if Hofstadter’s purpose is to provide an objective view to import a sense of life, or philosophical view on the value of life, few can deny that his theory is inordinately clouded by his political views. He informs us that he has found resolution to his own conflicts by being so compassionate that he can be overwhelmed beyond his ability to retain consciousness, and that his concern for light counts and souls, both large and small, leads him to being a vegetarian who will not eat those light sources with greater potential for greater placement on his soul scale. He leads us to believe that he is a man in tune with the political variables for resolving conflict, but in the end it is obvious that all of his philosophical peculiarities line up on one specific side of the philosophical aisle, and that he cannot see the inconsistencies that arise from it. 

Social Psychological Operations

RilalyLeave a comment

“Excuse me,” I told the 7-11 coffee guy, “could I get in there?” I knew this guy. I was in line behind him twice before. I knew his routine, and I knew it was not courteous. The last time I was behind him, I swore that I would say something next time. I knew he would fill his cup, sip on it, and fill it again. I wondered if he was the type to calculate how much free coffee he attained in those little sips over the years. Once the cup was finally full, he would grab a sugar packet, tear it open and fill the cup with it, without taking the obligatory step to the side.

I put some of the blame on 7-11. They should put the sugar packets in a location that required a step to the side. Numerous other franchises do this for their impatient customers. This 7-11 did not.

As for the 7-11 coffee guy, I considered him a narcissist. For who, other than a complete narcissist, has no awareness of the people around him? I guess that’s the question isn’t it, I thought staring at his back, is a narcissist aware of his surroundings, and he chooses to ignore them, or is he blissfully unaware?

He has to be aware that others are waiting behind him, I thought, but as far as I could tell, he didn’t consider us in anyway. Maybe he’s not a narcissist. Maybe he’s just inconsiderate. Is there a difference?

In the midst of his sugar pouring, I hit him with my request that he step aside, and I was astounded by his response. He said, “What? Oh sorry,” as if it never occurred to him that people might be behind him in line. I was ready for a confrontation. I was ready for him to consider me rude. I had two to three lines ready for him. He didn’t know. I was so ready for what I felt sure to follow that I was a little disappointed. What really got to me was that there were three people behind me and two of them were chatting, making noise that should’ve made this man aware that other people were waiting for him to finish.

I wondered if the others in line considered this man rude, inconsiderate, or narcissistic. I wondered if any of them thought this might be some sort of psychological game this man played to achieve some sort of subtle dominance in our little 7-11 world. Most people don’t wake it this far, and even fewer would suggest that it was a psychological operation on par with that military term. Anyone who thinks this way should probably be checked out, is something the three of them might say. If a person goes that far, and they have all of their facilities, they might have way too much time on their hands, they may think too much, and they might overanalyze simple situations too much. It is an overreach to illustrate a point, I decided, but how many of these naysayers get obliterated in the psychological field of battle without recognizing that a shot was even fired?

When my turn to fill a cup finally arrived, I couldn’t keep my mind’s eye off that guy now stirring sugar into his coffee. I couldn’t stop thinking about how the man’s deliberate actions should be penalized. Our anti-climactic conclusion left me with the thought that I should add something more confrontational, just to have the exchange live up to the billing. ‘Well, be more considerate of others,’ is something I thought of saying, ‘from now on.’ I thought of two or three more things to say, as I poured my sugar in, but I decided to just let it die. The guy obviously didn’t mean to be inconsiderate, I realized, and there was nothing to be gained from further confrontation.

“Could you at least step aside to pour your sugar in,” one of the guys behind me said, “so we can get our coffee?” The irony of that question didn’t hit me in the moment. I was so focused on the first guy that the third guy in line woke me out of my thoughts.

It wasn’t until I said, “What? Oh sorry,” as I stepped to the side that the full breadth of the irony struck me. It dawned on me that the most vociferous complaints I heard about narcissists were often made by those who are so narcissistic that they never flirted with the idea that they might be a narcissist. This hall of mirrors was, at the very least, embarrassing, and at most a worrisome display of contradictions that could lead to a full-blown identity crisis. I didn’t have time for an identity crisis, I was late for work.

The moment wasn’t dramatic enough for an identity crisis either. It was just a couple of guys who were impatient, and once the matter was resolved to everyone’s satisfaction we all moved on without another word. I would’ve been able to put the matter behind me as quickly as it confronted me, were it not for the two men chatting. Those two men, number four and five in line, who were chatting so much that I couldn’t believe the first coffee pourer didn’t acknowledge their presence, were still chatting. That wobbled me a little more, as I stood there, but I knew I couldn’t stand there forever contemplating my place in the world, because I was late for work. Actually, I realized, I was on schedule for being on time for work, with what I considered enough time to allow for traffic delays.

Before entirely putting the matter behind me, I wondered how many identity crises are averted because a person is late for work. Is this why so few people are reflective, I wondered, while putting my keys in the ignition. Is this why so many people are so much happier than me? Is this how a narcissist misses their own narcissistic tendencies when they complain about another’s narcissistic characteristics? Is it psychological projection, or is it easier to spot another’s faults when we suffer the same? Do we need to be more reflective on matters such as these, or am I too reflective? Do I sweat the small stuff too much? These people don’t care about your contradictions, or that you may be hypocritical, they just want you to move aside, so they can get some coffee. Is there a fine line between being reflective and too reflective, and how many reflective types are so reflective that they’re almost afraid to leave their homes, lest they reveal a contradiction? If reflective artists like Kurt Cobain picked up a part-time job working the drive-thru at Arby’s, might he still be alive? Does a busy work schedule fill the empty spaces in one’s soul in such a way that they don’t obsess over obvious contradictions in their character?

Social Psychological Operations

Regardless how such moments play out, there are often some sort of psych ops (psychological operations) games at play in even the most mundane interactions.

The term psych ops is most notably associated with military operations, but it could be said that we engage in various forms of psychological operations every day. For the purpose of distinguishing the two, we’ll call the latter social psych ops, as opposed to military psych ops. This allows us to distinguish day-to-day, conversational psych ops from those that may eventuate in death.

If the third customer’s complaint affected us in such a way that we recognize the contradiction in our being, how do we react? In the interaction with the third guy, I was as nonplussed as the first guy, and I was as genuinely as apologetic. That’s really all you can do. The alternative is cleanse our soul and provide a detailed account for the how he revealed our contradiction on this subject. His response would probably be something along the lines of:

“Listen, I don’t want to get physical here, so I’m going to ask you once again to please step aside.”

The genuine apology allows everyone to move on. No harm no foul. Unless we happened to notice the clothes number three was wearing, the manner in which he parted his hair, the way he tied his tie, the way he licked his lips before speaking, or the brand of coffee he chose. If we noticed any of the above, we did so to counter their brief evaluation of our character, and the points we gained by noticing their flaws are often innocuous, and they do little-to-nothing substantial for our psychology, and we forget all about them the moment our coffee cup is full, because the likelihood of running into any of these 7-11 customers again is negligible.

Most true points, scored in social psychological operations such as these, involve encountering an opponent more than once, remembering the points we scored in previous encounters and using them in the future.

Let’s say that that the interaction we have at the coffee machine is not at a 7-11 involving complete strangers, but one that occurs in refreshment center of the office. Let’s say the person we encounter is one with whom we have an ongoing, work-related relationship. Let’s say the two combatants know superficial, something somethings about each other, but that they keep that information close to the vest. We might know some things about them, but we would consider it a violation of protocol to use that information against them. If that’s the case, a ‘How you doing?’ intro can take on altogether different meaning. They might say this in a benign manner, but it’s not as innocuous as our brief 7-11 interactions were.

“I’m doing fine,” we say. “Thank you for asking.”

“That’s great to hear,” they say. “How’s the wife?” It’s possible, and likely in most occasions, that these introductory questions are benign. Even the most cynical mind knows that’s possible, but we might also wonder if it’s as strategically innocuous as it appears to be. Why didn’t they choose to speak of the quality of coffee the company offers in the refreshment center, or the pizza they serve in the cafeteria? They could choose to speak about our boss, “I hear you have Mr. Druthers as a boss. I had him once, he’s a real ball buster.” They didn’t chose to speak about any of this. They chose to speak about our wife. Yet, we can’t openly psychoanalyze our interrogators, for there’s no defense to taking umbrage with relatively innocuous questions.

“Hey, I just asked how she was doing,” is what they say. We both know that anytime one assigns motive to a piece of conversation, that’s an excellent out. We all know that most such conversation points are innocuous attempts at polite conversation, but the cynical among us can’t help but think that some statements are strategically placed to put the subject in a place of feeling too sensitive.

Some of us believe that this tactic can be located somewhere in the devious chapter of their social psych OPS playbook, for we know they have no real interest in our wife’s condition. They may think that their wife is better looking, or in some way superior, to ours. They may also know that our wife is something of a nag, and that we have had some resultant, marital problems as a result that permits them some feeling of dominance through comparative analysis. It’s also possible that this is not an overt attempt to be devious, but that they just feel more comfortable discussing wives with us. The question we ask ourselves is why do they feel more comfortable talking about our wife?

“How are the kids?” is another question they may ask. “How’s your kid’s soccer game going?”

All of the same questions and answers apply to this question. They know our kid has had some challenges when it comes to displaying athletic prowess, and they have had no such difficulties with their kid. They know that they have a lot of social psych op points on us on this page, and they enjoy displaying them whenever the two of us interact in the refreshment center. It gives them a little lift for that day to know that while their lives are not what anyone would call intact, at least it isn’t as bad as ours.

Whether the subject of the conversation revolves around kids, or wives, most people do not concoct conversations with us for the sole purpose of proving superiority, and most of them do not take overt glee in whatever causes us stress, but they just feel comfortable speaking to us on certain subjects. They may not want to start a conversation about productivity numbers, for example, because that is where we have proven superiority. We may try to change the subject to productivity numbers, because that is where we feel most comfortable, and we may not take overt glee from their troubles in this area, but we feel that we’re in some sort of psychological arm wrestle.

“What do you think of that Jones fella?” they ask. “He’s such a blow hard, always going off about how great his kids are, and how great his wife is, and how much money he makes.” By saying this, they’re telling us that they like us because we’re humble, self-effacing, and self-deprecating, and they find our comments endearing. Nobody likes a blowhard, who doesn’t know how to laugh at themselves, and we all consider humility a virtue, but why do we prefer humble people? Is it because we don’t like playing these games, or does it have something to do with the idea that we don’t like playing these games with this Jones character, because he defeats us on most of our bullet points?

We tried being self-effacing around this Jones character once. He didn’t get it. He immediately went about telling us that he had no such problems in that area. We said what we said to be funny, but he used that occasion to take a leg up on us. That’s just who that Jones character is, we decide.

“As for that all that money he talks about,” our refreshment center friend adds. “I heard it from a bird, who heard it from another bird that Mr. and Mrs. Jones cannot afford that house they live in. Yeah, everyone thinks he has it all, but I’m here to tell you that the Jones clan is deep in debt, and they’re playing it day-to-day.”

The two of us know that Jones has a beautiful house, and we both hate him for the beautiful, well-rounded family he has. There’s got to be more to it, we say, searching for a taint in the man’s glorious armor. Knowing the man can’t afford the lifestyle he lives gives us both a lift for the day. Even if all we’re doing is speculating with each other about Jones’ situation, we feel a little better about our comparative situations.

“I could live like that too,” we add with a laugh, “if I didn’t mind living in debt.”

The two of us have just compiled some much needed points on the Jones fella that we can keep close to the vest the next time we see him. We thank this work associate for that information, because we needed that lift. We needed the social psych op points.

Strategic Psych Ops

The previous scenarios detail the strategy chapter of the social psych op playbook. In this chapter, the psych ops soldier is involved in information gathering activities on those outside their immediate sphere of influence.

The accumulation might begin with a simple attempt to understand our likes and dislikes, but they evolve this conversation into an attempt to understand why we have these likes and dislikes, until they have a snapshot of our soul, and our sense of life. They may not be engaging in warfare in the truest sense of the word, but the knowledge they gain in this basic training phase will help them establish some form of dominance in preparation for any for social warfare that erupts in the future.

“But I don’t do any of this,” some of our friends will complain, if we present them with social psych ops theories, “and I don’t know anyone who does.” When we hold them to account, by repeating to them some instances where they did, they say, “I wasn’t dressing you down. I just wanted to know how your wife and kids were doing. I was making conversation for the love of St. Francis of Assisi. I just wanted to know how your family was doing. Nothing more. I had no ulterior motives. I just wanted to get to know you better. Sheesh, maybe you need to get out more.”

It is possible that some people think this way. It is possible that their “How is your day?” conversation starter was totally benign? It’s also possible that their search for dominance was occurring on a subconscious level for which they are not even aware, but no one ever considers the idea that this attempt to tell you that they don’t play such games is a game in and of itself.

The follow up sentence to further condemn you to a few moments beneath their heel would be, “And I can’t believe you do … play games like these.”

Such a characterization might be daunting, in that it makes us think we might be an incurable cynic, and we should evaluate ourselves to see if we mischaracterize some comments, but some of the times they use such vulnerable moments to score future points on us.

It’s possible we might never know the difference. It’s also just as possible that they might engage in a similar tactic later on down the road, with the knowledge that we are now vulnerable to the cynicism charge. The latter occurs when we reflect back on the initial charge and realize that they were engaging in a social psychological operation that is foreign to us, one steeped in passive aggressions. We may believe that, on some level, they were lying, and we may believe we have just gained some insight into who they are, and that we have gained some points in the social psych ops playbook with that knowledge.

But, and this is a crucial element to understanding how other people’s minds work, they may not be deceiving us in any way. They may believe that they never engage in social psych ops. They may believe that they’re just nice people working their way through a day, trying to make as many friends as possible, but they might turn around, not five minutes later, and inform us of a conversation they had with Mary in accounting.

Some suggest that only 2% reflect on themselves objectively and that the rest of us have a subjective perspective of who we think we are. Thus, they don’t view their conversation with Mary in accounting the same way we do. They may see it as a simple conversation that the two of them had, and if we see something more in it, that’s on us. They may see Mary in accounting as the hoebag that she is, and the fact that Mary just happened to tell one of her hoebag stories to them was done without any prompting on their part, but the fact that they told us about it means that they think they scored some points on Mary.

The latter description is the true definition of social psych ops, for most of them occur without either party’s knowledge. Most social psych ops occur when we notice the clothes someone wears, the coffee they drink, their inferior hygienic practices, the manner in which they entered into our conversation or exited it, how often they swear, or how they part their hair, how they tell a joke, if they’re hip to the latest music, or if they’re too hip and conformed to marketing manipulation, how they get emotional, or if they do, what they eat, and how they eat, if they’re too random, or too calculating, and where we fit into all those social paradigms. Those are the social psych ops that we engage in every day whether we know it or not.

Like military psychological operations, social psych ops are conducted to convey select information and indicators to an audience to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of groups and individuals.

The mission of these operations is to inform our audience that we are superior to them in some way shape or form, or if that’s not the case, we hope to at least take something away from the interactions. The latter may be more important, for it is in these bumper car-type interactions, with opposing forces that we tend to locate some definition of our character. It is also by engaging in these interactions that we become more equipped to deal with them in the future. They can be practiced in wartime situations, and in peace, and they can be used to define or malign, but best practices dictate that we, at least, acknowledge how often they are in play with everyone from our fiercest opponents to our good friends so that we are prepared.

As with any exercise of this sort, our opponent will attempt to survey the battlefield before engaging. He will try to locate our insecurities and place his best forces there. The best social psych ops general will also have knowledge of his weaknesses, and either place some forces there, or cede ground. There’s nothing wrong with temporary, strategic surrender, as long as we recognize our opponent’s attack strategy for what it is. As with most martial arts training, self-defense is the optimal use of social psychological operations.

Those equipped with a brain that requires more processing, may need to concede ground to those who are blessed with quick-wits for a time. If we are the types who require more processing time, consider the fact that our life will be filled with social psychological operations from all quarters, and we will need to learn how to react to them. Accept defeats for what they are, recognize these psychological ploys for what they are, no matter what excuses are given for deployment –and there will always be excuses given for few openly admit their strategy– and develop counter attacks that may foil or prevent future attacks.

All attacks and counterattacks are situational, of course, but one needs to establish reference points for their opponents that they can use to counterattack. This universal frame of reference is vital to a psychological operations soldier, for once we’ve established ourselves in a given area our antagonists will attempt to switch the playing field on us. They might choose politics or sports, because their team has a recent history of beating ours in these arenas. They may choose the department of the company they work in, or our inferior position in the company. The might speak of the type of dog they own that is superior in a physical sense, or the shows we watch that are not as funny as theirs, or any psychological vine they cling to, as they hang off the cliff with all of their inferiorities dangling out for the world to see because they forgot to wear their psychological support hose.

One might think that those who engage in strategic, information often rely on professorial and clinical psychological study, but most of it relies on the incidental research we perform on friends and family to achieve active dominance on the battleground. It is the latter that we will concentrate on in our conversations here, for if a reader’s interests lie in the more clinical and professorial arenas there are countless books and blogs that will educate and entertain in this fashion, but we know what we know. For the rest, the reader must go … elsewhere.

Operational Psych Ops

To this point in our psych ops training, we have focused on some unknown strategic ploys and information gathering exercises of social psych ops warfare. All of this is key to understanding how these psych ops are employed, of course, but no amount of theoretical discussion will help a reader understand what they’re up against better than witnessing these practices deployed in live action.

Operational psych ops involve putting that which was gathered during the information gathering exercises of social psychological operations into play. It is an informed approach that the social psych op soldier uses to attack fellow psych op soldiers in what could loosely be termed a training exercise.

Have you ever confided a weakness to a friend? “I have a fundamental weakness about me that no one knows about, but don’t tell anyone else about it.” We provide these people excruciatingly painful details about our weakness, only to have them divulge it. We’re angry and vulnerable. “I confided that information to you in strict confidence!”

“If I knew it meant that much to you, I wouldn’t have said anything,” they say to our surprise. If you have been in this situation a number of times, you know the U-bend pipe defense that psych ops soldiers employ in a manner Buggs Bunny did against Yosemite Sam did to return gunfire.

“I told you that in strict confidence,” we say. “I said the words don’t tell anyone too.”

“Don’t be so sensitive,” they might say, or “Don’t be so defensive.” They may word their responses a number of ways, of course, but the point of their responses is that it’s incumbent on us to get over their violation of our trust.

Inherent in such messages is this idea that we’re naïve. “So, you can lie to me, break my trust, and twist my mind up with your tactics, and I’m the one who needs enough cultural awareness to accept these things for what they aren’t?” These responses are the type we don’t think of in the moment. Too often, we accept these evaluations at face value, and we walk away feeling too defensive and too sensitive.

The idea that a strategic operational campaign can occur without our knowledge is not only possible, it is likely, for they will often occur in pot shot fashion, similar to guerrilla warfare. This may appear to be a training exercise to all parties concerned, but watch what is said during training exercises, for they can evolve into a live-fire training exercise when we least expect it.

Tactical Psych Ops

Tactical psych ops are the culmination of all that was learned in the previous two phases of the social psychological operations, in that they are conducted in an arena assigned by the individual across a wide range of psychological operations to support the tactical mission against opposing forces. When the psych ops soldier exploited our weakness in the training exercises, they were testing our vulnerabilities, and gauging our reactions to see if the material could be used later, before the opposite sex, or in any arena that involves an individual that the psychological operations soldier is trying to impress.

One may not experience tactical operations from their closest friends for years, until such time that the individual uses all that they have learned in live exercises to impress that one person who means something to them. The victim might be surprised by an attack that appears to come from nowhere and didn’t appear to establish anything beyond what could be termed humorous and insignificant. For the operational soldier, however, the tactical use of psychological warfare is the end game. It’s the reason they invited you to this particular outing, it’s the reason they engaged in all those private, training exercises with us, and it’s the reason they continue to call us a friend.

One popular tactical psych ops weapon is the Dumb-Fire Missile. The Dumb-Fire Missile has no targeting or maneuvering capability of its own, and it is often used to counter attack a counter attack. It can be something as relatively benign as:

“But I was only kidding,” they say when we effectively counter their assault with the meanest thing we can possibly think of to counter their act of revealing information about us. A fight starts of course, and during the aerial assault, they say, “You meant it, but I was only kidding. Sheesh!”

The stealth effectiveness of the Dumb-Fire Missile occurs when it goes beyond dismantling the defenses of its opponent to persuasively encouraging popular discontent against our counter attack. The interpretation is that when they engaged in a powerful attack against you, they were only kidding, or they weren’t aware that it meant that much to you. “You can call me dumb for not knowing that it meant that much to you, but your counter-attack was just mean.” When you counter-attacked, it was obvious to all that your comment was the result of wounded soldier, laying on the battlefield, desperately trying to salvage their standing. Used often enough, the Dumb-Fire Missile can effectively degrade an adversary’s ability to conduct, or sustain, future operations against them in the future.

The Dumb-Fire Missile is similar to the U-bend pipe defense in that it returns fire, but it is more effective in disrupting and confusing the adversary’s decision-making process by undermining their command and control with the idea that we might never know when they’re truly serious. Most of those who don’t regard normal human interactions as social psychological operations think that these soldiers aren’t serious, and they will attempt to laugh as hard as others, because they don’t take themselves all that serious, and they’re perfectly capable of laughing at themselves, because they’re wary of being perceived as too defensive or too sensitive.

A successful deployment of this strategy, followed by the Dumb-Fire Missile, has the potential to procure enjoyment of foreign forces to a point that the social psych ops adversary loses the will to fight. By lowering the adversary’s morale, and then its efficiency, these operations can also discourage aggressive reactions by creating disaffection within their ranks, ultimately leading to total surrender.

The integrated deployment of the core capabilities of social operations warfare, involve psychological operations, personal deception, and a display of security in concert with providing support. These attacks can be launched under the guise of the aggressor pretending that these attacks are performed in a humorous vein, and you shouldn’t get so upset at that which they deem to be insignificant. It is a passive-aggressive approach that they use to undermine our base that makes us feel foolish for believing that we see ulterior motives. Once we understand that this is not so serious, any furtherance will influence us to side with them while they are attacking us, in a manner that will disrupt our normal reactions, and corrupt or usurp our normal adversarial decision making processes all while protecting them from current or future attacks on the topic in question.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_(United_States)