Presentation: Conditioning 2.0

## Conditioning 2.0

Presentation by Patricia Jane, MD, at Riga Symposium 2021

**Introduction**

*On the screen the presentation turns to a soothing blue screen with the text:* “Don’t shoot”

My name is Patricia Jane. I am a mage.

*A light effect shows there is a mirror on the stage, and shows that Patricia was standing elsewhere.* (Physical distance implicates: not me who is the mage)

That is what a mirror version of me in an alternate universe could say, with complete truth. Actually, I’ve met such a mirror version, from Everett volume YD-145. I am no expert in dimensional science, but they are alternate universes, with alternate histories. I compare it to Spinoza’s possible worlds. This mirror version of me was definitely not from the best possible world though. She escaped to our universe, because everything would be better than her world. Even room 101. (Priming for Nicole’s talk, for the explanation of alternate universes and for the horribleness of this specific one. And the cause of that horror)

So, why do I bother with her? First, as an memorable illustration of mirroring. Mirroring neural pathways through manipulating mirror neurons is part of my theory of conditioning 2.0.

But let's start with the beginning. Why would I even question traditional conditioning?

* Because cooperation without conditioning is possible. The conventions work together on our common goals, for example on this symposium. Together we discuss the problems we encounter and find a solution. (Repetion of words reflecting cooperation. Effect: priming for agreeing with each other) Conditioning helps us to work together, but it is not sufficient. We still disagree and argue. Still, together we manage to make it work. This works because as members of the technocratic union, we have common goals. We want to enhance science, protect the masses and pursue the betterment of mankind. We might disagree about the best methods to reach these goals. But the goals we believe in are the same.

* Furthermore, cooperation with unconditioned deviants is possible. History shows us that at the end of WW2 this cooperation was necessary and yielded the desired results. At that time we shared a goal with the deviants, the very survival of mankind. The Nephandi were a bigger threat than the deviants, so we cooperated to eliminate that threat. (Both: we cooperated with freaking deviants, it’s shamefull if we can’t cooperate within the union - again, for Nicole and: priming for new cooperation with deviants, which might be necessary)
* Next, there are practical concerns. Traditional conditioning takes time. Implementing the appropriate mind procedures takes weeks in the majority of cases. This is a problem for The Feed. It is intended to deal with the ever changing and ever growing internet. We don’t have the luxury to wait weeks for a new employee. By that time, his or her  internet fame has died and his followers have gotten bored and found someone else. To add to that, after conditioning certain characteristics change. In general, there is less binding with sleeper society and new ideas develop slower. To use a metaphor: Conditioning places someone in a box, and for the Feed thinking out of the box yields better results (Especially for Hawke worded in terms of efficiency instead of creativity)

* And last but not least, several years ago, Salisbury and myself lost our conditioning. (Allows time for room to start breathing again) Which, considering our reputations, should have been a major safety breach. It wasn’t. While we were deconditioned, we encountered an enemy who promised us perfection. The third agent, who was conditioned,  succumbed to this lure instantly. Surprisingly, Salisbury and my own lack of conditioning turned out to be the  defence against this corruption. Agent Taylor will explain this in further detail.

Therefore, I considered it necessary to test other methods of conditioning. Unfortunately, I could not test it with an entire convention. I’m sure the ethics committee would not approve. (Priming, for less shock and anger if Voidies confess)  I have done several experiments though. But let’s start with the theory.

 **Conditioning 2.0**

**Mirroring**

The first element of conditioning 2.0, as I’m sure you still remember, is neural network mirroring. Mirror neurons fire both when you perform an action and when you see it, thereby mirroring the brain of the person you are watching. If this happens frequently enough, the preferred neural pathways of those neurons change too.

Here is a typical scan of a subjects brain when he is in moderate pain and when he sees someone in moderate pain. The mirror effect is obvious.

Personal contact is most effective for reaching this mirror effect. Team building exercises, sports, singing (:p), or just talking: all activities you do together have this effect.

As you can see, the effects are lesser when there is no face to face contact. However, they can be applied constantly and are therefore interesting. One way interaction has the least effect

**Nudge**

The second element of my theory of conditioning 2.0 are nudges. Nudge theory claims that you can use positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions to achieve non-forced compliance to influence the motives, incentives and decision making of groups and individuals.

Like Homer. Or like a simple text asking you not to shoot me, on a screen in a colour that is universally seen as soothing.

Nudges can be subconscious, semi conscious and conscious. People don’t realize that the colour of lighting influences when they take breaks. Or simple spatial effects like the placement of bulletin board or coffee machines. Semi conscious is for example pokemon go. People play it consciously. But they are nudged to walk more without it being explicit. Examples of conscious nudges are a scholarship program for children of employees.

These effects have been studied extensively, due to the time constraints of this presentation I have left notes for further reading for the interested. (This incluses a personal colour changing link for Cirk)

**Emotional stressors**

To solidify the effects of these two behavioural modifications, the newly formed neural pathways need to be strengthened and consolidated. This can be done by using emotional stressors. Like for example, that reckless agent breaking all protocol by claiming she’s a mage, just to get some emotional reaction. Just to get some emotional reaction that helps to solidify the newly made connections in your brain, in this case so the elements of conditioning 2.0 can be easily understood and retained. (This is directly for Circk and Hawke. Read as: I know my reputation, and I'm using it, but not just because of sensationalism. This is science. And it's good science)

A diverse toolkit can be used for this, both positive and negative stressors work.

As you can see on the brainscans: when an emotional stressor is in effect, in this case fear, the brain lights up. Any nudges and mirror effects are enhanced.

There is a disadvantage: enlightened probability calculations are necessary to reach these effects.

**Experimental evidence**

Now for the experimental evidence

The Feed. I have used condition 2.0 on the employees of the Feed. Due to the everchanging and evergrowing nature of the internet, the Feed needs to be very adaptable,and needed to grow quickly, to even try to keep up. Unfortunately, there are only so many enlightened agents and their skills are necessary in the other fractions and conventions.

This also means that the traditional top down hierarchical structure of organisation is not the most suitable. A mutually cooperative style of organization is more efficient.

I have already mentioned pokemon go beforehand. Pokemon go was mainly a study in nudges to go outside and to spend money. Plus a filtering mechanism to find budding deviants and extraordinary citizens.That worked. But we didn’t just find them. We created extraordinary citizens, who dabbled in code deciphering code breaking and organizing communities. This find was way above expectation.

Advantages:

* More hiring flexibility
* Better connection with sleepers
* Rising number of extraordinary citizens
* Lower rate of defection
* More efficient: less time needed for initial conditioning
* Conditioning less ‘messy’’ Wanted to add: disadvantage for me: less blood and pain, but generally that is seen as an advantage, but someone intervened :)
* Reducing single point of failure. I am a mindmaster, I have already mentioned I lost my conditioning. If the first sentene of this presentation would be true, would you really want me to have an all seeing army of willing slaves? (Effect: stressing the dangers of single point of failure through connecting it with the emotional reaction caused in the beginning. Plus extra emotional reaction by combining it with the point directly above)

Disadvantages:

* Higher upkeep. I hope this can be diminished further, once a balance is reached it is easier to keep it then to change it.
* More complicated due to use of external factors. Enlightened mind science and enlightened probability theory necessary.

**Conclusion**

So, in conclusion. Conditioning 2.0 consists of neural pathway mirroring, nudge theory adaptations and the use of emotional stressors to enhance these effects. I hope you can forgive me for the little stunt, or as I explained, emotional stressor I used to illustrate this. (Directly meant for Hawke). It was needed to illustrate my theory of conditioning 2.0. Conditioning 2.0 has been shown to work in practice, with many advantages and few disadvantages.

I hope that we can agree about the possibilities and further adaptations of this theory. So we can work together on the version that best reflects our common goal, the betterment of mankind.

That is to say, if there is anything left of mankind after the presentation of my coworker agent Salisbury. (Appear really sane and reliable in comparison to Franklin) Question Time for this presentation is merged together with the question times of Franklin and Nicole and is therefore after Nicole’s presentation.