A generalized mental model describing propaganda techniques

Propaganda is most effective when its victim is unaware.

Every day we are bombarded with one persuasive communication after another.

These appeals persuade not through the give-and-take of argument and debate, but through the manipulation of symbols and of our most basic human emotions.

For better or worse, ours is an age of propaganda.

— Anthony Pratkanis and Eliot Aronson (1991)¹

Many Canadians were unknowingly exposed to military-grade propaganda during 2020 and onward. This propaganda was delivered through ‘trusted’ media outlets, government authorities and so-called experts.

Even the Ottawa Citizen reveals this to be the case.

As a hard science technical person, I tend to stay away from soft sciences such as behavioural psychology and social psychology. After 2020 — however — I began asking myself some very serious questions, because I (apparently) suffer from an extreme case of false consensus bias.

The false-consensus effect is a cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate how much others are like them, in terms of sharing things such as their beliefs, values, characteristics, experiences, and behaviours.

— The False-Consensus Effect: People Overestimate How Much Others Are Like Them

The truth is: rarely anyone thinks like me, or shares my values, beliefs or behaviours.

Given that, I needed something to help me understand other people’s behaviour, because I was at a loss. So I asked myself “how does propaganda work?” Personally, I find most popular psychology and existing models lack the heuristic cohesiveness found in most technical models. Other research revealed techniques and tactics, but not core principles describing the mind and its relationship to propaganda.

So I got inventive and created my own model to help me understand.

Keep in mind, this is just a modelled heuristic that I personally use.
It may or may not be useful to you.

I based my model from a simple and widely used atomic model — the Bohr model.

In atomic physics, the Bohr model or Rutherford–Bohr model of the atom, presented by Niels Bohr and Ernest Rutherford in 1913, consists of a small, dense nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons. It is analogous to the structure of the Solar System, but with attraction provided by electrostatic force rather than gravity.

— Bohr model, Wikipedia

I developed a premise stating there are four high-level groups² in the mind.

1. Ideas.
   Abstractions used in subject-object relations — contains identity, ideas and ideology.

2. Thoughts.
   Abstractions with form: composition and logical relationships between concepts.

3. Emotions.
   Interaction between thoughts that may induce behaviour.

4. Behaviour.
   Corporal action in the physical world.

Each group has a cyclic period that is ordered from short (Ideas) to long (Behaviour).
i.e., Action takes more time than feelings, feelings take more time than thought, thought takes more time than identity.

Each group can be approximated as a simple harmonic oscillator³, which in its most basic form separates into three components.

1. Storage (V).
   Potential energy. e.g., Capacitance.

2. Conduction (H).
   Transferred energy. e.g., Heat loss / gain.

3. Inertia (T).
   Kinetic energy. e.g., Induction.

There are a few different ways to heuristically describe these components:

• Inertia tends to lead and pull the flow of energy.

• Storage tends to lag and push the flow of energy.

Components in this model are referred to as mental states.
There are twelve mental states in total⁴ (i.e., three for four levels).

This is shown in Figure 1 — Mental concentric model.⁵
(The scope of this model is limited to provide a logical framework to describe propaganda).

Figure 1 — Mental concentric model

---

The mental states in Figure 1 can be heuristically read as:

1. Identity is pulled by image and pushed by will.

2. Thought is pulled by belief and pushed by knowledge.

3. Feeling is pulled by attitude and pushed by experience.

4. Action is pulled by a plan and pushed by achievements.

This model describes cognitive dissonance as an inertial collision between two beliefs (i.e., mental stress) whose net differential dissipates as a negative feeling.

Thus,

1. Negative feelings⁶ indicate an opposition of belief.

2. Gratifying feelings⁷ indicate an affirmation of belief.

Operant conditioning is therefore an oscillating control signal of perceptual affirmation and opposition.
(i.e., Carrot and stick).

Notice anything interesting?

These mechanisms can be used to influence either behaviour or identity.

Ultimately, the propagandist wishes to control behaviour — the lowest level — and this model illustrates transition states which achieve that. In particular, controlling any component in the FUTURE (T) column will lead behaviour.

The goals of the propagandist are to:

1. Shape identity to constrain will and image.

2. Restrict thoughts and manage knowledge and beliefs.

3. Fragment feelings by instilling traumatic experience and an unproductive attitude.

With this in place, then desired behaviour can be induced through tools.

The generalized tools the propagandist uses to lead behaviour are:

1. False images.
   (Attack and inflate the ego or install a false persona).

2. False beliefs.
   (Distort perception with misleading language and symbols).

3. False attitudes.
   (Manipulate emotions through narrative).

I find this model very useful, especially for introspection.

This model can describe the mechanism and goal for most propaganda techniques.

A list of ten propaganda techniques from Propaganda Critic:

1. Name-Calling.

2. Glittering Generality.

3. Euphemisms.

4. Transfer.

5. Testimonial.

6. Plain Folks.

7. Bandwagon.

8. Fear.

9. Unwarranted Extrapolation.

10. Bad Logic.

Each technique follows the same delivery system, as described in my previous article. Successful propaganda creates Advocates who spread messages and infect the minds of others.

Figure 2 — Persuasion messaging funnel

Concluding remarks

I made this model for one reason: self-defence.

How do you fight a war you cannot perceive?

5th generation warfare. Are we in a silent war against an invisible enemy?

This is not a scientific model, but rather a heuristic appropriate for my limited use.
Plus it has some interesting and thought provoking concepts.

Notice how Ideas encompass ideology.

• What is the relationship between morality, ideology and identity?

• Is this model capable of describing social ideological behaviour?

The Mental concentric model is just one heuristic to help defend against propaganda that intends to control our behaviour and force compliance. This is a threat to anyone who values their personal freedom.

Propaganda is one of the many tools of the totalitarian corporate state.

Here are ten defence tips from Propaganda Critic you may find useful:

1. Consider the source.

2. Is the headline in ALL CAPS.

3. Photoshopped picture?

4. Check the byline.

5. When was it written?

6. Check the supporting sources.

7. Click on the links.

8. Skim the entire story.

9. How does the story make you feel?

10. If you still aren’t sure, ask a friend.

The more awareness we have of propaganda the less it affects us.

Please let me know if you find this model useful or if you know of any other similar literature, models, anecdotes, etc.

1. Anthony Pratkanis and Eliot Aronson (1991). Age of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion. New York: W.H. Freeman. Page 7.

2. Inspired by Kabbalah and The Four Worlds.

3. A simple harmonic oscillator is a linear model of a system that performs work.

4. “The Twelve Disciples follow The Sun Cross.”

5. Mental states and their order are inspired by the Sephirot.

6. Opposition of ‘should’ (necessity modal) creates frustration, anger and hate; opposition of ‘could’ (possibility modal) creates anxiety, worry and fear.

7. Affirmation of ‘should’ (necessity modal) enhances the ego and self-image; affirmation of ‘could’ (possibility modal) enhances pleasure seeking tendencies.