authorityresearch.com

Algorithms.

by
Dean Gotcher

I used to write computer programs (some 30 plus years ago) using assembler (DOS), i.e., pop, move, etc.,. The addiction of programing, and boy was I addicted is amazing. I would sit down at the computer (with the sun setting) to work on a program and the next thing I knew the sun was coming up, no bathroom breaks that I remember, although I am sure I did (maybe not, I don't remember). Those days are long gone. I would be a dinosaur in this age of programming.

While the complexity of programing has changed (and how) the basic logic has not. Much of computer work is based upon algorithms with the language of If, Then, Else, Or, etc.,. The only one who is not taken captive to the program is its creator, as he is 'creating' it according to his desired outcome. All who use his program are taken captive to his outcome, i.e., are taken captive by his algorithms, guiding them to the programmer's desired end. You might be in control of some of your actions but in the end you are subject to his program with its if, then, else, or, etc., controlling you.

What makes the program even more controlling is the programmer's use of constants to guide the user in his actions or reveal his thoughts or way of thinking. The programmer can evaluate the users knowledge or way of thinking by pre-determining which answers a person enters to a question can take him in the program. For example, if the programmer has three words for the user to choose from on a question and he has assigned an "If-Then" to each word, taking the user to another question assigned specifically to the word selected, he can progressively evaluate the user's interests or way of thinking. By categorizing the words or answers the user gives, i.e., the choices he makes a spectrum or continuum can be used to place the user in a classification pre-selected by the programmer.

Take J. L. Moreno's listing of the different "rolls" people play in a meeting determining right and wrong behavior for example. If A = "Group Task Rolls," B = "Group Building and Maintenance Rolls," and C = "Individual Roll" with A and B being the desired behavior in a meeting and C being the undesired, by listing behavior in a meeting that "suggests or proposes" a "new" way of doing things (Initiator-contributor), say dialoguing, with everyone sharing their "feelings" and "thoughts" instead of discussing the right and wrong way to doing things, i.e., presenting (pushing) their position of how a project should be done, "asking for clarification or information and facts" on how a meeting using dialogue is to be done (Information seeker), "asking for clarification on the value" of using dialogue, the new way of making decisions, which is informal instead of discussion, which is formal (Opinion seeker), "offering 'authoritative' facts" supporting the use of dialogue instead of discussion in a meeting (Information giver), "stating belief or opinion" on how this can "help" get more done without less contention, i.e., "more light less heat" (Opinion giver), "spelling out suggestions" on how this "new" way of doing business (communication) can be done (Elaborator), ... "keeping record of the groups communication" (Recorder) the members in the group are overwhelmed (snowballed) with this "new" way of doing things.

The same applies to B, with anyone "praising, agreeing with and accepting" the "new" way of communicating (Encourager), "mediating between differing parties" (Harmonizer), "offering compromise as an example" (Compromiser), "keeping communication open (flowing)" in the meeting (facilitator aka Gate-keeper and expediter), "Expressing (suggesting) standards for the group" (Standard setter), "spelling out suggestions" (Follower), and "keeping record of the groups body language" (observer) being key to "Group Building and Maintenance," overwhelming any opposition.

This leaves C out of the decision making process, with anyone "disapproving of other's views" being labeled an Aggressor, "negative and resistant, disagreeing and opposing" of the "new" way of doing things being labeled a Blocker, "asserting authority" being labeled a Dominator, etc.,. needing to be silent, censored, or removed for the sake of "group harmony" and the project at hand.

C represents the father's/Father's authority, the behavior to be negated in the meeting. A and B are the desired outcome. Using this means of evaluation (filtering right and wrong behavior through dialogue, i.e.,  through "I feel" and "I think" instead of through discussion, i.e., through "Dad, the Constitution, God's Word, etc., says") 'liberates' all participants (and "the people" if the meeting has to do with public policy) from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from "rule of law."

Looking at it another way, using the logic of "If A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C," with the selection of words or answers for A being possibly three different outcomes (this is really a simple but basic illustration) the answers the user gives can place him in a pre-selected category, say, of thinking. For example if the user's answers equals one list (A), and A equals B, which is classified as holding to absolutes in a world of change, and B equals C, which is not healthy thinking, then A, the user is not a healthy person and needs to be remediated (re-educated). That is how algorithms can be used in computer programing, grading how fit or unfit you are by what you look at or do on your computer, iPhone, etc.,. It is just that easy. The programmer always determines the outcome when an algorithm is used. You are in the programmer's box, no matter how free you might think you are while using his program.

"Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible [where the child accepts and obeys established commands, rules, facts, and truth, with doing right and not wrong according to established standards controlling his thoughts and actions]. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process [from doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth to doing what "seems" 'right,' i.e., satisfies his carnal desires of the 'moment']." "At one end of the continuum the individual avoids close relationships, which are perceived as being dangerous [doing or being right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth being his concern]. At the other end he lives openly and freely in relation to the therapist and to others [the "educator" and "the group"], guiding his behavior on the basis of his immediate experiencing [being able to do what he wants, when he wants, in the "light" of the current situation, i.e., what he can get out of it for his "self," with group approval (affirmation)] – he has become an integrated process of changingness." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

"We know how to change the opinions of an individual in a selected direction, without his ever becoming aware of the stimuli which changed his opinion." "We know how to influence the ... behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide satisfaction for needs of which they are unconscious, but which we have been able to determine." "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors [our potential ability to influence or control the behavior of groups] will follow." "We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood."
'...we can be more deliberate and hence more successful in our cultural design. We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do." "By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior—the motives, the desires, the wishes. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises." (Rogers, on becoming a person) emphasis added.

"Bloom's Taxonomies" are "a psychological classification system" used "to develop attitudes and values ... which are not shaped by the parents." "Ordering" "different kinds of affective behavior," i.e., "the range of emotion(s)" "organized into value systems and philosophies of life." "It was the view of the group that educational objectives stated in the behavior form have their counterparts in the behavior of individuals, observable and describable therefore classifiable [true science is "observable and repeatable," i.e., objective, i.e., constant not "observable and describable," i.e., subject to an opinion, i.e., subject to 'change']." "Only those educational programs which can be specified in terms of intended student behaviors can be classified." "What we are classifying is the intended behavior of students—the ways in which individuals are to act, think, or feel as the result of participating in some unit of instruction." "The student must feel free to say he disliked _____ and not have to worry about being punished for his reaction." (Book 1, Cognitive Domain)

"To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in many ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed." "...many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

"Bloom's Taxonomies" are all about "ordering" "different kinds of affective behavior," i.e., "the range of emotion(s)" "organized into value systems and philosophies of life." (Book 2 Affective Domain)

Whoever controls the algorithms controls the outcome. If parents control the algorithm, i.e., the "if-then," then their children are under their authority. If socialists, i.e., 'liberals control the algorithm, i.e., the "if-then," then the children are under their influence and control, i.e., seduction, deception and manipulation. Whoever develops the algorithm for "mental health" controls your life based upon their definition of "mental health."

Advertisement is money. What you look at will expose you to ads on what you were looking at, even when you do not want them—with those paying (and thinking like) the programmers getting the exposure. It is all about business, i.e., money (the love of it).

Also PC (political correctness) is of key interest to the programmer, who is interested in what you write or look at, censoring information (excluding "inappropriate information," i.e., information which gets in the way of his desired outcome, i.e., information which is "negative") or not censoring information (including "appropriate information," i.e., information which goes in the direction of his desires outcome, i.e., information which is "positive") according to the algorithms used to determine what you receive in your (and others receive in their) searches. Censorship should be in the hands of the parents, not in the hands of a few who lust after money and power

With what I know about those in control of the conveyance (selection) of information which is being promoted or censored over the computer, through the use of algorithms, it should be (is) expected, despite their actions being wrong (which they can not admit—if they did, they would lose money and power, i.e., control over "the people" in their box), this website is being censored.

Through the selection of information being presented to the user (via indicative reasoning where favored, i.e., suggested information is presented and reinforced, i.e., treated as being "positive," encouraging the users direction of thought and un-favored information is left out or if presented (brought up), unsupported or put down, i.e., treated as being "negative") in order to move the user to a predetermined outcome (which is desired by the programmer). It is the same procedure used by "group psychotherapists," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., Transformational Marxists (all three being the same) in order to 'change' how people think (who come into their box, i.e., who become subjects of their algorithms).

Whoever controls the algorithm controls the outcome. After all BSTEP, i.e., "Behavior Science in Teacher Education Programming" is a federal grant all about psychologically profiling and tracking, evaluating and manipulating every American citizen for the purpose of 'changing' and then controlling his or her way of thinking and acting. Its algorithm is all about globalism, making sure all "educators" and "re-educated" (and un-educated) think and act the "right" (same) way, i.e., politically correct aka common-ist.

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2018, 2020