The "father" of the behaviourism movement is John Broadus Watson, an American psychologist (the 17th most cited psychologist of the 20th century).
Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in, and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief, and yes, even beggar-man and thief - John Watson
Well, it seems like Watson didn't have a malicious plan. But, from his words we certainly get a sense that he could foresee a possible use for behaviourism that could lead to pretty much any outcome you could imagine.
One could say (perhaps cynically) that behaviourism and the notion that behaviour can be modified at all is a form of "human hacking". But of course that's not the case. Anyone interested in self development, self improvement, personal growth, organisational development and any number of similar aims is almost certain to be motivated by the prospect of some sort of transformative change in their (or someone's) life or professional outcomes, brought about willingly adopting new behaviours, thoughts or actions that benefit themselves or others in some hopefully positive way.
However, Watson's quote above does foreshadow a potentially darker path. One where individuals or groups, (perhaps especially organisations) choose to act in their own self interest to manipulate people at scale and thereby create massive, societal, changes with generational consequences.
For example, the story that exposed how Facebook enabled global political manipulation and its approach to political influence was brought to light by Sophie Zhang, a former data scientist at Facebook. In her nearly 8,000-word exit memo, Zhang revealed that Facebook allowed fake accounts and likes to sway elections in dozens of countries, including India, Mexico, Afghanistan, and South Korea. Despite her repeated attempts to address the issue, the company did nothing to substantially mitigate the problem. Her courageous actions shed light on the challenges of election interference in the digital age.
People were hacked. People are hacked. All the time. We can all be hacked.
Can we find out if we're "hack-resistant"?
There are many ways to think about the issue of becoming more "hack resistant" and less susceptible to manipulation. More aware of, and resilient to particular... techniques.
One of the first principles to become aware of (before seeking any solutions) is that we need to be objectively aware of our predisposition towards suggestibility. Can we be influenced? Can you?
One way to assess this is to seek insight about a specific behaviour. At Promana we call the behaviour A Catalyst.
A Catatyst: Uncovers the preference for thinking differently, rising to the hard challenges and even rattling cages if that's what's needed
It takes just a few minutes to obtain this insight (and to do so objectively). A preference for this behaviour indicates a willingness to challenge, a tendency to be disturbed by authoritative "just hush and believe these words" types of language. Catalyst behaviours lead to change, because they tend to challenge the status quo. A Catalyst might be the contrarian or disruptive one, but might also be the quiet devil's advocate. There's no hard and fast rule for how the behaviour will manifest, but we can certainly identify the preference for it with the Activation assessment:
Below is my own Activation report, created with Promana People. I don't mind sharing it with you, it's not controversial! Anyone can create their own assessment (full report here).
My personal result gives me some comfort, as it correlates with my lived experience in some key areas of my own life, regarding recent world events!
I've placed it here to give you an idea of what you will get back when you try it. Obviously your results will be your own!
Assessments are completely private but I'd be fascinated to hear from you if you decide to try this one. What do you think of your results? Do you feel your results for the Catalyst factor align with what you see as your "hack resistance".
Have I got you thinking?