Since the two posts came out on Cambridge Analytica, it has been an interesting night/day….Quite a few math geeks who either use tools produced by C.A. and other like enterprises, or help make them, are upset that I appeared to blame psychographic segmentation entirely on them. “But…But…Our work is only half the equation. The other half is the head shrinkers!” The aforementioned “head shrinkers” are demanding to know why I haven’t given them credit for THEIR half of the equation–after all, without their deep insight into psychological issues like motivation, stressors, and triggers, all the math wouldn’t count.
And then there are those that use these tools professionally, always, who are simply displaying various levels of preening and condescension, and chuckling about “tin foil hats”…While opining that all the shouting from the rooftops won’t make a difference anyway.
Inquiring Minds Want To Know….
- Do you find yourself feeling relieved at having “pulled the plug” on cable and news, once the withdrawal phase has passed? Happier, lighter of heart, sleeping better, having fewer stomach problems and headaches?
- Noticing things around you that seem different or new, then finding out from others (who shut off the programming a while ago, or never watched to begin with) that those things are not new, they have been there “forever”?
- Do you find if you go back to heavy news viewing, all those happy happy feelings disappear, and you feel worse than you did before?
- Do you find yourself thinking WTF? when you watch a live Trump rally, then watch an MSM “recap” of the same rally?
- Or even more common, have you attended a Trump rally, then watched the coverage later on TV, and wondered if they accidentally are showing an entirely different event than the one you were at?
PS has been a very real and very pervasive part of American life for decades, in one form or another. But only in the last decade or so has it assumed a dominant role, especially in the very vital world of TV news and politics. Its use in both media and politics makes perfect sense, when you consider it objectively. Running a political campiagn, or a TV station, takes a LOT of money. As such, if you’re a politician, being able to use tools that allow you to drop the cost per vote as low as possible is simply smart business.
And TV channels run on advertising. It’s their life blood. This is true of all “serious” TV channels, meaning those that everyone isn’t stuck with because they bought themselves a slot in a cable bundle. This is especially true of the “news” channels, like FOX and CNN, because instead of the old fashioned 5 a.m. to midnight news cycle, we now have a 24/7 news cycle. So what can a poor innocent news channel do to make itself stand out from the crowd, to gain market share in such a competitive world?
Just A Thought For A Real Alternative….
I have the answer! A new news alternative, that will really give the people the whole story. It would blow the other networks right out of the ratings game, especially during elections! MY network, for instance, would frame themselves as “The only Fair and Balanced News”. We can hire talking heads that are thought to be neutral, fair, and balanced, and add in a real firebrand or two from each end of the political spectrum. We can have our video editors frame the presentations so that some parts are “center/right” and others are “center/left”. And for a really cool special show, we can have the whole video right there, and have experts or authority figures meet and have an open debate/discussion!
Wow, I can see it now, so clearly….
We’ll have a nice table with one conservative, one liberal, and one or two neutral figures–with minimal clutter in the background, dark neutral clothing choices for men, brighter solid clothing choices for women, dark table, no clutter to distract attention. The two neutrals will usually be one male and one female, the two opposing views may be the same gender, but for maximum contrast, I’d try for one female, one male, of different race or ethnicity.
And the final player is the opener/closer–giving us five at our table. It will be YUUUUUGE! We’ll own the ratings, and the advertisers will be thrilled, and the people will be getting what they always wanted, some fair balanced media they can trust. They’ll be die hard viewers, with us forever!
They’ll never watch any other channels, and they’ll finally see that all those OTHER guys are nothing but spin doctors and programmers, brainwashing people with mind control and programming provided by their NWO/Bilderberger/Tri-Lateral commission/U.N. paid for narrative designed to create mindless puppets, sheeple that will blindly vote as they wish, think as they wish, and riot when they wish.
Yep–real, accurate media, commercials, news and election coverage, is coming to a neighborhood near you, any time now…..Or not. I’m pretty sure everyone will recognize that network I was dreaming about up there. And once we’ve dug more into what exactly firms like C.A. are capable of, and why it works, you’ll see that we don’t really have, or even need to have, mysterious shadow groups for people to obsess over.
The Math Geeks Are The Important Ones.
The effective “ruling the world” scenario can be reduced to simple mathematical equations, and is a natural consequence that arises from how the universe, and other complex systems operate–because they MUST operate that way. Laws of Math, and Laws of Physics, are LAWS. And everything around us operates within that framework.
Does that mean that the Bilderberg Group, Agenda 21, and the Tri-Lateral Commission aren’t real? Not at all, of course they are. But they aren’t unnatural, sinister things. They came about the same way that “Art Imitates Life”, and the same way that PS has always been around, but until recently there was no practical way to map out and create a context, from a mathematical point of view, to express what people already did.
The universe runs on math, and so do all other complex systems. Sometimes, that math is expressed by the pattern of a honey comb, or a chrysanthemum–both examples of Fibonacci sequences. Sometimes, it is used to rate subjective things–like religious commitment, political leanings, or depth of social engagement–on objective scales, and assign values to them.
Because when you can define something mathematically, you can then express other things using that math. And you can also track trends, measure changes over time, introduce new variables, and more. The head shrinkers provide the “context”. But it is the math geeks that then translate those very subjective contextual perceptions into hard, objective numbers.
So, when you’re looking at PS and what it can do, there is a silver lining to this cloud, and this silver lining, BTW, is not strontium 90, and doesn’t glow in the dark :-). This silver lining is that there ARE limits to what PS can do, in two major ways. One is the basic limitations of math in a complex system. The other is that while the math can be used as a framework to communicate the subjective objectively, you have the ultimate control over your own world view–once you finally realize that PS isn’t a tin foil hat concept, and it is far more prevalent than most believe, and you learn to recognize its effects objectively.