Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Psychological Operations

goarmy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 191 posts

Re: Psychological Operations

#161

Post by boston_clone »

niyikiza wrote: post #151
bgroat wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you hire and trust people to perform PsyOps? Presumably they'd know what levers you're pulling, and they may be able to pull the same levers in YOU. Is it just a pay cheque and finding people who already believe what you believe?

I'd imagine the main motivations are similar to those of spies: ego, revenge, money and ideology.

Hard disagree here, as this job is for enlisted soldiers. Ego and money are out on that alone. Revenge, maybe? But you really don't know where you'll deploy. Ideology... maybe as well? The Army understandably does a pretty good job of obtaining uniformity there.

Virtually all of the motivations of folks I knew could be abstracted to "things are truly bad for these people; how can we fix it?".

Re: Psychological Operations

#162

Post by demadog »

boston_clone wrote: post #5

Former PsyOp guy here with OEF experience, now working in cybersecurity. Please feel welcome to ask me (almost!) anything, and I'll do my best to respond. edit - this TTP FM [0] (warning, PDF ahead) seems to be freely available, and gives a comprehensive overview of what PsyOp actually does in the modern US Army. Perhaps most relevant for today is propaganda analysis and the SCAME method, a multi-faceted approach to…

I’m surprised the army literally calls it PsyOp rather than trying to disguise it as something more mild like “Communications Specialists”.

Is there a reason for this?

In my mind it would be to attract better talent that actually wants to do PsyOps rather than Communications, so it’s a good filter to attract smart people that want to do spy-like work.

Re: Psychological Operations

#163

Post by boston_clone »

wolverine876 wrote: post #72
wolverine876 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think our intelligence community and executive branch did an incredible job of establishing themselves as a high-credibility source from even before the invasion, allowing them to easily counter propaganda sponsored by Russia or whomever else. I noticed that too, and I've seen a few experts other than you say it. I've always thought that the US fell far behind on information operations. Others like the Russians s…

I realize that wasn't clear and I'm too late to edit the parent: In the past , "I've always thought that the US fell far behind on information operations." Now it seems different. What changed organizationally? Can it be sustained?

I think we're simply seeing the positive effects of an administration that cooperates with the intelligence community, and not just unidirectionally.

There are numerous reports to dig up about how the former admin flat-out ignored or went directly contrary to what the IC was saying, and I think that hurt us more than we will ever know.

Re: Psychological Operations

#164

Post by User23 »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #158
99_00 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Russia was able to create division, why are they so bad at it when it matters - now. Those examples seem low quality. The election interference from 2016 is laughable. https://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/171101163247-russ...

> If Russia was able to create division, why are they so bad at it when it matters - now. Just guessing: It is easier to create division, when you manipulate both sides . It is easier to manipulate both sides, if you genuinely do not care which side wins. As an example, consider vaccination. Trolling only on the anti-vax side would be a rookie mistake. A few bad arguments get made, then they get debunked, for most pe…

I'm not pro-Russia. I oppose virtually all wars, especially ones that have a terrifyingly high chance[1] of solving global warming by nuclear winter. Furthermore, I'm neither Russian nor Ukrainian and I didn't have an opinion on the validity of the parties' justifications for the last 8 years of the Donbas conflict and I see no reason to let CNN/FOX/NYT/Twitter or any other American media outlet assign me one now. That being said the Ukrainians shelling ethnic Russian regions for 8 years was wrong. Russia invading and shelling Ukrainian regions is also wrong. My bias is against the unnecessary taking of human life. My intellectual interest here is in the use of propaganda and how it mutilates the ability of otherwise intelligent persons to make sense of world events.

Evidently the anti-Russia side is doing a fine job already, so why wouldn't Russian propaganda operations in the West just focus on the completely occulted pro-Russia side? And rest assured there is a pro-Russia side, we just don't get to hear it. If Russian "troll farms" were effective they'd manage to get it out. They observably haven't, so we can conclude they're incapable of doing so. Furthermore, the powers that be in the West act as though we are children that can't risk exposure to dangerous Russian media. This offends me and it ought to offend everyone else that has any intellectual self-respect. Regardless which side, if any, is in the right, the infantilization of the subject in the West is depressing.

How many people here have even heard of the Azov Battalion[2]? What is behind the apparent absurdity of an openly neo-Nazi unit fighting for the Jewish President of Ukraine? There's a lot going on here to be curious about and we're not permitted to be.

[1] I estimate it's around 1% right now.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

Re: Psychological Operations

#165

Post by boston_clone »

misterdabb wrote: post #118
boston_clone wrote: post #5

Former PsyOp guy here with OEF experience, now working in cybersecurity. Please feel welcome to ask me (almost!) anything, and I'll do my best to respond. edit - this TTP FM [0] (warning, PDF ahead) seems to be freely available, and gives a comprehensive overview of what PsyOp actually does in the modern US Army. Perhaps most relevant for today is propaganda analysis and the SCAME method, a multi-faceted approach to…

Is this itself Psyops? ;)

the real fun starts when you consider that everything is!

but in all seriousness, no. don't join the Army unless you truly want to dedicate a chunk of your life to an organization like that.

be a good neighbor, stay politically informed, vote, take care of your friends, help others in need, create art and support artists, etc.

Re: Psychological Operations

#166

Post by boston_clone »

verisimi wrote: post #141
boston_clone wrote: post #5

Former PsyOp guy here with OEF experience, now working in cybersecurity. Please feel welcome to ask me (almost!) anything, and I'll do my best to respond. edit - this TTP FM [0] (warning, PDF ahead) seems to be freely available, and gives a comprehensive overview of what PsyOp actually does in the modern US Army. Perhaps most relevant for today is propaganda analysis and the SCAME method, a multi-faceted approach to…

How do you live with yourself? What possible ethical basis do you have as an individual have to mess with people (lots of them), lying, misleading, misinforming, etc in order to achieve a goal? Who decides what is a 'good' goal? Does it matter, or do you just do what you are told? I know the answers - you're just following orders, you believe you are working for the good, etc. These are not valid answers - you cannot…

> How do you live with yourself?

eh? probably much the same as anyone else who isn't perfect.

there seems to be a misconception here that psyop == lying. the majority of psyop is well-presented truths as opposed to intentional deceit. credibility counts, and is easily eroded with careless lies.

we did have a fair amount of latitude which objectives we would pursue, however, based on the relevance and estimated effectiveness for the demographics in the area. that said, reducing roadside bombs is an objectively good goal, in my opinion. as is encouraging people to participate in an election. as is informing the public about free medical services.

> I know the answers

well that's no fun! honestly, it seems your "known answers" are a bit off-base. try to keep an open / curious mind; we're still on HN after all :)

Re: Psychological Operations

#167

Post by boston_clone »

TeeMassive wrote: post #75
boston_clone wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone is inherently evil, but I can proudly say much of my work was oriented toward humanitarianism and democratic initiatives. Call it cliche, but you do win people over with kindness and decency. We worked to build schools, teach farmers about modern agricultural practices, provided medical services, and let women vote or shop by themselves in the local bazaar without fear. We helped reduce IEDs plac…

> Call it cliche, but you do win people over with kindness and decency. You are probably familiar with the work of Dale Carnegie. A large part of HN find his work to be overrated and obvious at best, while personally so far I found it enlightening and found that the world would be a better place if people actually followed its advice. What is your opinion on his work?

I've personally never read his work. I thought the titling alone so shallow as to not warrant a toe-dip, and the orientation toward success in business was just another factor in my shying away. Sorry!

Re: Psychological Operations

#168

Post by boston_clone »

johnpeng47 wrote: post #59
boston_clone wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone is inherently evil, but I can proudly say much of my work was oriented toward humanitarianism and democratic initiatives. Call it cliche, but you do win people over with kindness and decency. We worked to build schools, teach farmers about modern agricultural practices, provided medical services, and let women vote or shop by themselves in the local bazaar without fear. We helped reduce IEDs plac…

Nice psyop. Lol jk (somewhat). How much would you say the US mission in Afghanistan is influenced by this kind of humanitarian directive vs. some nebulous geopolitical motivations?

For a period of time, counterinsurgency doctrine for Afghanistan was entirely based on humanitarianism - i.e. "winning the hearts and minds".

We stopped pushing that around the time I was there, as regular Army folks can do a fantastic fucking job of erasing months of progress in one patrol or meeting.

I $till haven't landed on a $ati$factory explanation for our geopolitical motivation$ to $tay in Afghani$tan, though.

Re: Psychological Operations

#169

Post by wolverine876 »

mandmandam wrote: post #136
wolverine876 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between astrology and astronomy is evidence. Do we have any regading this question?

r/worldnews is corrupt, and I'm sure you can find a metric fuckton of evidence if you care to look. I saw a wildly popular but politically embarrassing* article there get wiped from the front page for "just being commentary / a blog post with no evidence", when it was actually a Coundcloud link to the politician's actual words. The story was wiped. It is no longer searchable by either Reddit or Google search. This is…

If you make the accusations more extreme and express them with more anger, does that make them more likely to be true?

Re: Psychological Operations

#170

Post by wolverine876 »

boston_clone wrote: post #163
wolverine876 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize that wasn't clear and I'm too late to edit the parent: In the past , "I've always thought that the US fell far behind on information operations." Now it seems different. What changed organizationally? Can it be sustained?

I think we're simply seeing the positive effects of an administration that cooperates with the intelligence community, and not just unidirectionally. There are numerous reports to dig up about how the former admin flat-out ignored or went directly contrary to what the IC was saying, and I think that hurt us more than we will ever know.

Beyond a doubt, I think that's an enormous improvement. Imagine Trump trying to plan, coordinate, and execute this response across the federal government, NATO, the EU, and countries worldwide.

However, my (vague, inexpert) impression goes back long before Trump. Obama, etc. seemed always a day late and a dollar short. Remember Obama's response to Russian interference in our elections? Not the actions (which I doubt many remember), but the words? Neither do I.

Post reply on HN