I have spoken and written quite a lot on intuition and its value as a higher form of domain expertise and process. Also, on how intuitive thinkers are often passed over by society, its businesses, and other institutions – either because we associate such thinking mainly with the female gender, and therefore to be disparaged anyway; or because even its exponents will admit to date it has been difficult to evidence. Without evidence, most of modern society ignores you.
In the past few weeks I have realised, through personal experience, that I now understand how intuition – ie arational thinking – actually works; furthermore, why we should pay far more attention not only to how it works but also to what outcomes and conclusions it delivers, if we want to have a cat in hell’s chance of surviving as a species; and finally, why we should create and scope the tools I will formulate in this post which I think now can deliver a real opportunity, for the first time in history, to rationally capture, evidence, and make admissable in courts of law and other structured environments, the data which intuition uncovers regularly.
For me, intuitive people capture what have been termed micro-expressions: flickers of emotion, feeling and intellectual position that flit across people’s faces and amongst crowd behaviours. Too small to point to, everyone has experienced them. Some live their lives constructively through such detections: they often go into caring professions, is my judgement. Very many people, however, use their perception and delivery of micro-expressions to manage colleagues and workforces under their charge, or even voters for goodness sake, without ever having to take ownership for such acts. This is how the stealthy bullying – which I believe that elements of the tech industry, and governments which align, have conducted against me since at least 2016, and possibly as early as 2002 – is delivered without anyone being able to prove to anyone what’s happening.
An example yesterday: a group of men came and sat down next to me, in a coffee-shop. There was so little room between the windows and my chair, they had to stand up, unable to avail themselves even of the stools they had under the windowsills.
There was literally no reason to sit next to me; no comfort; no why which could justify their choice.
Fortunately, a very nice teacher and her lovely daughter sat down next to me, and I was able to turn away my attention.
However, one of the big burly, old-style bouncer-type men closest to me (my prejudices coming through here, it is clear) kept on depositing a huge holder of sugar right next to me. He would take it off, I would concentrate on my conversation, and then he would pointedly replace it back so I couldn’t avoid clocking.
It may have been nothing. But it could’ve been something. The word “sugar” has symbolic meanings, and as an example of stealthy communication symbolism is most powerful, for legal code has failed quite dramatically to typify the meanings of – and therefore punish their usage, more importantly the intentionalities behind – such symbolic terms.
Bullying often uses symbolism.
It’s the very best way to avoid detection, and uncovering, as I say.
It’s my strong belief, now, that intuition in its detecting of micro-expressions is also just as capable of detecting micro-events. And such micro-events, charged with massive symbolic meanings, are used by all sides in the wars of spies; in the battles of organised crime against democratic society; and even in what to date has been seen to be the relatively benign impact of advertising on society’s functioning.
Advertising is one thing: make it, shape it, drop it into the public consciousness, and then let them take it or leave it.
But things as aggressive as account-based marketing, where big data is used to identify real (not apparent) influencers of purchasing decisions, to curry their favours – sometimes really rather intrusively – and to define and structure the virtual worlds which potential targets actually see, is perhaps one step beyond where we might want all this to lead.
The above is still considered ethical: it’s up to each practitioner to decide how important profit is and where their own ethical code lies.
But let’s imagine the same tools exist – and it is my judgement they must – for organised crime to shape ordinary people’s environments over similar periods of time as per account-based marketing habitually does: imagine everything – or most everything – you see belongs to the world of a man or woman or organisation looking to prevent – at the very least define overbearingly, so alignment happens with their interests only not yours – your democratic growth, life, development and business activity.
Imagine the film “Gaslight”, but writ large in our modern-day world. Every citizen and subject, as per Snowden’s revelations in 2013, no longer at the mercy of your own country’s security apparatuses, but far more depressingly and despairingly at the every whim and desire and depraved instinct of an organised crime, suddenly using the stealth of symbolic micro-expressiveness and micro-event delivery, on unimaginable and increasingly cyber-shaped basis. And this crime may just as easily slide into corporate as equal traditional dark.
This, then, brings me to the subject of the software tools and platform I am looking to deliver, in order to evidence to the eventual satisfaction of courts of law everywhere the symbolic language I describe:
- In particular, micro-expressions, and the micro-events created through such expressions, used by enemies of the UK – and of democratic allies who would deserve to collaborate in the project – in order to communicate stealthily and covertly amongst themselves, and coerce democratic subjects and citizens into taking decisions that simply go against their life, business and long-term interests in general, whilst always remaining undetected.
- It’s manifestly true that the state and its legitimate security agencies and actors will need to continue to use such covert and stealthy symbolism, and associated wider communication tools, themselves, but it is also clear that if I, on my lonesome, can – out of a simple sequence of personal thought experiments – devise a process to identify and evidence, and share and make admissable in all courts of law in the future, the kind of covert communication that organised crime, foreign spies, criminals of industrial espionage, those who illegally and out of real bad faith massage supposedly free markets by tracking concrete innovators, companies and potential competitors, as well as those who literally make wars through cyber-symbolisms, then our enemies multiple will also be doing this – or, if not right now, very soon will.
It is, therefore, my suggestion that before they get their micro-expression, micro-event and intuition-capture software tools in place, we need to do it first. But, like now.
Really like now.
Below, to finish, some draft thoughts, occurrences if you like, re how the future might look in this field:
Suggestions for workstreams to be carried out
Me, do a PhD as described in my draft proposal a while back. Simultaneously, we should design, scope, and lead – all collaboratively – R&D on the below.
A law school/department with a focus on:
Free market disruption
Security, in all senses
Conflict (ie peace maintenance/war avoidance – aiming to go to peace, not go to war) studies
Tech and law:
AR (assisted reality: that is, image- and symbolic-based communication support, the traditional perception of which usually generates the kind of “data” that leads to intuitive insights), and the use of AI – ie deep neural networks – to process, evidence and, eventually, make admissable intuitive thinking in courts of law everywhere
Other relevant tech which interfaces between software code and legal code, and extends the reach of the latter into areas of human activity currently not demonstrable
Law and tech philosophy:
Legal code, and its identification and typification of totally new types of crimes due to the introduction of AI and other technologies
Partners (need to have strong cultures and strength of purpose)
Agency engagements and collaborative spirits open to new ways of thinking: new as they stand; new as they emerge using the very same tools in the future to devise totally new, not text-based ways of conceptualising the world around us
I am agnostic about ways; though firm about goals.
Firm but flexible, as per my dissertation advice, way back when!
I would like a process though, rather than me simply tossing out ideas in isolation. Process always beats single thinkers. And process becomes embeddable and sustainable.
The organisations need to be strong enough to face down the criminal and covert tendencies I am looking to evidence: the micro-events built from micro-expressions, used by enemies of democratic states to communicate amongst themselves, as well as coerce subjects and citizens of the aforementioned states. Our states may, it is true, need to use these ways themselves to protect, serve and defend us, but if enemies learn to detect and evidence our micro-expressiveness and micro-events before we can theirs, then the situation will get exponentially worse.
I would love a team to drive this for the next twenty years. It deserves it. The detection, evidencing, and legal punishment of micro-expressiveness and micro-events that undermine democratic process and business freedoms should be our long-term goal.
Some ideas, anyways. Some ideas, always given in as good a faith as I can muster. Always that.
Never anything else.