A Hostage Negotiator's Guide to Cognitive Liberty

Faux reality, change catalysts, and burning the ships

Almond Blossom by Vincent van Gogh, 1890

While driving to the mall with my daughter a few days ago, she told me that to access her university’s student system, she had to install a facial recognition app on her phone. No alternative was offered. She said it was impossible to navigate the campus without a phone, as it was even needed to be granted access to certain buildings.

When we arrived at the mall, we first went to a large bookstore together so that I could place an order for

Mary Harrington

’s newly released Feminism Against Progress (which they chose not to physically carry in store). I was curtly told that they no longer place orders for customers as they want to encourage people to place them on their phones. “Really?” I incredulously replied. “I purposely come to the store to interact with people face-to-face, and now I am told to go back home, and do it online?” The customer experience representative - actual label on her tag - quipped, “Yep, this is what they want”.

At the next store, where we purchased some summer shirts, I noticed a sticker on the change room door, Need a place for your feelings to go?, and a QR code for a kids helpline. Even feelings get resolved online. At the cash register I commented that I could not take advantage of their 10% discount code as I don’t own a cell phone out of principle. “Why?” the cashier bluntly asked. “Because”, I said, “I believe in mental freedom and prefer to keep my mind shackle-free.” A moment of silence. “Huh”, was all she added.

Within half an hour the world had clearly told us that life now necessitates a digital dimension. Slowly but clearly those of us who choose to abstain from certain devices are rare aberrations met with curiosity or incomprehension.

Why should this matter?

The instances I relate here appear trivial in isolation. But as I have learned the hard way in my own life, darkness works in baby steps. When all of these small encroachments are accepted with a shoulder shrug, we may find ourselves so far removed from our basic humanness that we hardly recognize the image of God any longer.

Pilgrims in the Machine

discusses the transhumanist drive to replace human layers with technological layers, and the imperceptibility of this process. Quoting Mark Weiser, he remarks, “the most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it.”

While technologies have shaped our daily lives since the Oldowan toolkit, they have never before cleaved us to a faux reality.¹ This faux reality is not tangible, yet incredibly sticky. In this digital dimension we are an involuntary commodity, engage in pseudo relationships, are groomed into narcissistic self-focus, all while losing touch with the material, natural world and people around us.

For many of us this faux reality is not just an aversive experience, and doesn’t only violate our conscience, but it shackles, imprisons, and enslaves us; we become hostages in our own lives.

How do we free ourselves? If our minds are held hostage, how do we move toward the goal of becoming again fully human and achieving cognitive liberty?

At the start of this month I invited readers to join in community for a 30-day digital detox. Some of you have related your experiences to me so far, describing how freeing it has been, but also how challenging it is to resist the lure of devices. Anyone who has tried to kick the digital habit, or who has attempted to pry a teenager’s eyes away from screens, knows how seemingly impossible changing these habits feels. A recent book by Jonah Berger The Catalyst - How to change anyone’s mind provides seeds for enacted hope. Although this is a book written by a marketing professor, it contains practicable insights for changing deep-set habits.

Berger uses the concept of different catalysts² to remove roadblocks to changing minds and habits rather than pushing harder. The traditional route to change is to “coax, convince, encourage, encourage, push, push, push”. Unfortunately it doesn’t work, and even worse, it often backfires and can cause increased resistance, tension, and frustration. Apparently we have an innate “anti-persuasion” system; when we are told not to do something it interferes with our deep-rooted need for autonomy and freedom. And so we resist.

A memorable and bizarre instance of this resistance was the “Tide Pod” craze that had droves of young people consume colorful detergent pods. Videos went viral and Proctor and Gamble, fearing the trend would destroy their slice of the pie in the $6.5 billion dollar U.S. detergent market, did the seemingly reasonable thing: the company told people to stop eating the pods. They went so far as to hire a celebrity football player to wag his finger in a commercial, saying, “no, no, no, no, no.” The inevitable result: more people started eating Tide Pods and poison control centres worked overtime.

The first catalyst for change is to lay out the truth and let people make their own decisions. In the “truth campaign” teens were not told to stop smoking. Instead organizers of the Teen Tobacco Summit laid out the facts and allowed teenagers to make their own decisions. This approach led to the most successful anti-smoking campaign ever launched in the U.S., preventing more than 450,000 students from starting to smoke; within a couple of years it cut teen smoking rates in half.

So what would it look like to lay out the truth on the use of digital devices? What comes to mind is a simple list of facts about social media use and their delivery devices. This list would include:

• anxiety (experienced by 87.7% of people if device is left at home)

• depression (time spend on social media is a significant predictor of depression for adolescents)

• persistent sadness and hopelessness (experienced by 57% of girls)

• loneliness (73% of youth always feel alone)

• addiction (users click, swipe, and tap their phone an average of 2617 times daily; amount of time spent using social media is significantly correlated with later levels of alcohol use.)

• increased risk of suicidality (30% of girls have seriously considered suicide and there is a 66% increased risk of suicide related outcomes if used more than 5 hours)

• attentional difficulties

• interference with memory formation

This list can be extended almost endlessly. After Babelreported on a study by Sapien Labs released today which found that, "the younger the age of getting the first smartphone, the worse the mental health that the young adult reports today". For a more comprehensive discussion of mental health sacrifices see From Feeding Moloch to Digital Minimalism as well as the Ledger of Harms by Tristan Harris’ Centre of Humane Technology.

Gamblers in Monte Carlo by Edvard Munch, 1891

One aspect that I did not yet explore in detail is the engineered enslavement that social media apps and their delivery devices share with the gambling industry. It is no secret that apps are designed with slot-machine appeal. Tapping at images, messages, and icons, conjures a state of absorbed automaticity. In World Beyond Your Head, Matthew B. Crawford effectively portrays the stark and disturbing reality of rampant gambling addiction in Las Vegas. He explains that slot machines cater to adults frustrated by life, as they allow them to get in the zone, “…the place where their own action becomes indistinguishable from the functioning of the machine. You hit a button and the machine responds every time.” The simple action of tapping and getting a response translates into a sense of control over the world; thus gambling and social media apps share fundamentally the same function. Further, the goal of app designers is the same as the aim of slot machine algorithms: to extend “time-on-device”. The faster a device works, the greater the speed of interactions, the deeper the immersion, and the longer the engagement on the device.

Most disturbingly, many slot machine players are so deeply hooked that they will not even respond to their urgent bodily needs. They will instead wear dark clothing so that the urine and feces stains are not as visible. Creepier still is that some casinos have facial recognition software that prompts a player’s favorite machine to act as irresistible siren, calling out their name after them if they decide to head toward the exit — not unlike the pings and buzzes of notifications of our phones, luring us to sacrifice another slice of our attention and time.

We have an innate desire for freedom and autonomy. We want to feel that our lives and our actions are in our control. Recognizing that our smartphones deliver engineered enslavement turns the tables. We are made to believe that devices provide personal freedom of expression, movement, buying options, entertainment, etc. Yet we only need to scratch the thin veneer to reveal that the exact opposite is true. If you have not yet seen The Social Dilemma, I highly recommend watching this documentary by Tristan Harris (especially together with your kids).

I asked my daughter whether she would be willing to sign an agreement to engineered enslavement if that were part of the phone company’s policy. “No, of course not!” she said.

Would you let your child sign such an agreement? If not, why would you accept it yourself?

Which brings me to the next catalyst for change: highlighting a gap — drawing attention to a disconnect between someone’s thoughts and actions. This strategy had a powerful effect in Thailand’s “Smoking Kid Campaign”, which had children ask adult smokers for a light. The typical smoker would react with outrage and naturally refuse, and then lecture the young child on the dangers of smoking. Before the child turned to walk away, they handed the smoker a note which read, “You worry about me, but why not about yourself?” along with the number for a smoking cessation helpline. Calls to the helpline increased by 60% and it was considered their most effective anti-smoking campaign ever.

So why was it so effective? Berger explains,

People strive for internal consistency. They want their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to align. Someone who says they care about the environment tries to reduce their carbon footprint. Someone who preaches the virtues of honesty tries not to tell lies. Consequently, when attitudes and behaviors conflict, people get uncomfortable. And to reduce this discomfort, or what scientists call cognitive dissonance, people take steps to bring things back in line.

What beliefs do we hold about digital technology use? Do our actions reflect our beliefs? Do we expect different digital device behaviors from our children than ourselves?

The third catalyst is to provide a menu. Several readers have asked about guidance to help set boundaries for digital device use for their children³. As parents our typical approach tends to be the least effective “coax, coerce, and push” strategy. One of the reasons it backfires is because it activates reactance. Berger emphasizes the need to allow for autonomy and agency when trying to bring about change. If you are a parent you are familiar with this scenario: “Do you want to eat spinach?” followed by a stern “No!” Yet if we change the question to a choice, “Do you want to each spinach or carrots?” toddlers will tend to pick one of the two. They are no longer being told what to do, but rather they are deciding what they want to do. This may seem trivial, but apparently allowing for agency is life-giving.

Berger relates a study conducted in the late 1970’s where one group of residents of a nursing home was reminded of how much autonomy they had: freedom to arrange their furniture, choice in how to spend their time, whether they wanted visitors, etc. Additionally they were given the choice of a new plant and the choice on which of two nights they wanted to attend a movie. In contrast, another group of residents received similar information but were given a new plant (rather than choosing one) and told that the nurse would look after it. They were also told that there would be two movie nights but were assigned on which night to attend. Trivial choices, right? But apparently life-altering choices. Eighteen months later the researchers found that, “on the floor that had been given more freedom and less control, less than half as many residents had died. Feeling that they had more autonomy seemed to make people live longer.”

Providing your teenagers with a menu of choices with regard to digital device use, will help to give them a sense of freedom and autonomy in the decision making process. This will also make it more likely for them to follow through on rules that are agreed upon.

The Dinner Table by Henry Matisse, 1896

The final and most potent catalyst is to start with understanding. The toughest imaginable situations when changing someone’s mind can have life-or-death implications are hostage negotiations. Berger explains how the one of the most effective methods of changing someone’s mind is based on a simple stairway model of understanding, active listening, and trust. He describes how veteran hostage negotiators like Greg Vecchi do not start with, “Let the hostages go now or we’ll shoot!”, but rather, “Hi I’m Greg with the FBI. Are you okay?”

Seated and Kneeling Peasants by Camille Pissarro, 1893

No matter who Greg interacts with — be it a bank robber, a murderer, or a suicidal father — the entire conversation is based on showing compassion, understanding, and trying to learn where the person is coming from. In one instance Greg had to negotiate with a father who threatened to commit suicide. He was despondent, had lost his job, had no prospects, and felt that the insurance money that his family would receive after his death was the only solution. Greg could have told him that insurance companies do not pay out if a person commits suicide. But that would have ignored the father’s frame of mind.

This is the hardest part in all human interactions: to put ourselves into someone else’s shoes. Sometime we may just want the problem resolved, but this step takes time. Time is needed to truly listen and so to build a foundation of trust. After listening to the father, Greg learned that he deeply cared about his two boys and loved spending time with them. He finally said, “It seems to me that if you kill yourself today, your boys are going to lose their best friend.” Silence. Greg had managed to reframe the father’s own words and this made suicide no longer an option.

If you are a parent of a teenager and have tried to establish and enforce digital device usage rules in your home, it is likely that anger and frustration have played a significant role. When active listening, understanding, and trust build the foundation for interactions, anger takes a backseat. It is hard to remain angry at someone trying to help.

The goal of a hostage negotiator is to, “get the person to the place where they are willing to listen to his suggestions and direction. And even when he gets to that place, he makes sure to solve things from their perspective…getting the robber to feel that the solution was their idea. Getting them to convince themselves.”

Greg’s strategy does not just work for robbers or suicidal individuals, but can be applied effectively to negotiating digital device use within your family. Try starting with understanding rather than persuasion. Ask questions that help get to the root of whatever needs or motivations are driving behaviour. Berger notes that this has an added benefit: “Starting with understanding also diffuses anti-persuasion radar by making sure the other side gets a chance to say their piece….Giving them a chance to explain themselves increases the chance that they’ll listen when you are speaking.”

Fishing Boats at Sea by Vincent van Gogh, 1888

While all these catalysts may help move us toward regaining cognitive liberty, at times it may be necessary to simply “burn the ships”. There are many historical instances from the Trojan women to Hernán Cortés, where burning their fleet of ships was a strategy of ensuring that there was no way back. The strategy was about a full commitment to a way forward.

Some of you have embraced this method to varying degrees: Deleting all social media apps, exchanging a smart phone for a flip phone or landline, reducing screens inside the home, and even going off grid completely.

Sometimes the option of using a digital device just needs to be taken off the table. I don’t own a smartphone and know that if I did, I would struggle to limit my use of the device. I am not a “freak of self control” as Matthew B. Crawford calls those who manage to resist the addictive lure. After my slice of morning time use before breakfast, I place my laptop out of reach on top of a bookshelf for the rest of the day. This is not an option for many of us, yet physically reshaping our environment helps in orienting our mind toward the physical and social world around us.

Freeing ourselves from the entrapments of faux reality is a battle. But it is not a hopeless one.

Blossoming Almond Branch in a Glass by Vincent van Gogh, 1888

I hope that these strategies will help to support you toward reclaiming your cognitive liberty. Please share your own experiences with strategies, struggles, and small victories in the comments below.

I look forward to hearing from those of you who have joined the Digital Detox Pilgrimage by the end of the month. Leave a note in the comment section if you would like to join.

If you found this post helpful, consider supporting my work by ‘tiping’ a one-month subscription, or simply show your appreciation with a ‘like’ or a ‘share’.

1. I call it faux reality because “virtual” reality has the connotation that is somehow “almost” real and also in a sense carries the echo of virtuous, neither of which is true.

2. Chemists use catalysts as special substances that can produce chemical reactions faster and with less energy. Although this may seem to contradict laws of thermodynamics, catalysts achieve this by lowering the barriers to change.

3. This topic deserves a whole post on its own. I will be writing more on this in the next couple of months.