> Something about having an intention to defy an adversary ... to benefit the underlying problem regardless

For the most part I am in agreement, albeit as you might imagine I do have 1st and 2nd hand knowledge and experience interacting,remediating, and mitigating these types of situations, which are not that uncommon at the VP/executive level of global companies (insofar as it being on the IT side).

I am sure some people reading what I previously wrote would have thought, that is oddly specific for the disparate subject matter being covered. Many of the specifics are based in actual observations, first or second hand.

Unfortunately even a process you mention taken to an extreme has its own failings that need to be assessed and addressed.

I would add that it is equally important to be mindful and maintain a balance of healthy skepticism about one's own reasoning in this context, and in doing so consistently test whether discarding opportunities is appropriately supported or irrational (i.e. jumping at shadows). Having an awareness of the dangers provides forewarning which forearms and empowers us to not be mindlessly swayed.

It is a tough habit to get into for most, because frankly it is a lot of work, and when starting out fresh simple things take a lot of effort to engram, and the benefits need to outweigh the cost (which coercive methods adds to).

People generally also want to believe in goodfaith in their fellow man, and with any want comes an almost imperceptible bias. Also adversaries seek out and take advantage of presumptions, to turn it towards their advantage. Even an automatic response towards defense or discard could be used by them to deny you opportunities, which result in similar inducements in a round about way.

If one is not careful of these drawbacks you can miss out on a lot of opportunities naturally.

Like with any propaganda/influence I've found the most benefit in a few simple practices. First, withholding agreement automatically to avoid psychological consistency traps, as Cialdini notes as well in his psychology book on Influence.

Conditioning an almost automatic response to question or discard ambiguity where language has been rationally corrupted, such as where words have conflicting underlying meanings depending on misleading context (a common deceitful tactic), also where one gets a sense of confusion as these are often indicators of hypnotic influence on your mental state.

Taking the time to appropriately review what is said. When one is hurried, people often rely on their unconscious habits, or fixed action patterns of tasks/muscle memory. Speed reading for example often converts text to images/concepts, but also largely removes the filters we have for discernment.

Finally, minimizing attack surface by default, and limiting exposure/opportunity for attack while still performing the necessary 'critical' evaluation checks.

This seems to be the best balanced approach I've come across so far, albeit it does run the knife's edge; and mistakes in judgment are inevitable given incomplete information, and that few today take care that their words have no conflicting ambiguity. There were much more words in use during the 30s-50s largely because they had a hyper-rational view, and subscribed to a rational approach with one word to one non-conflicting meaning.

It is generally not a good thing to close off opportunities automatically without rational cause, and few people today actually consciously have the framework or tooling to evaluate credibility, based on observed deceits of a source. It requires a lot of discipline.

As a side note, in hypnotism, they often refer to inducing covert hypnotic states as bypassing the 'critical' factor. Conditioning oneself to maintain a critical view dulls or negates a lot of the benefit, for an adversary.

Concluding, with a small side note, ironically, these type of environments which we now find ourselves in actually provide a very sound and practical argument for internalizing strong religious beliefs with regards to the associated values, as a defense mechanism, albeit alongside an equally rational framework and principles.

From a interesting perspective, there may be very little difference between conditioning an automatic response to stimuli for this purpose, and the feelings one gets when subject matter violates their deeply held religious beliefs. When properly functioning, both would draw the required immediate attention, criticality, and wariness needed to avoid destructive outcomes (i.e. evil, as Illyin defines it when refuting Tolstoy's pacifism).