The Preview
The Architecture of Persuasion: A Deep Analysis
What you're about to read is a systematic deconstruction of persuasion,how it operates at the individual level, how it scales to state identity, and how it ultimately shapes national consciousness. This isn't your typical surface-level discussion about influence or marketing tactics. If you want a fast talking, flame throwing heap of hogwash, visit YouTube and you’ll find plenty of losers pitching their how to’s without having done it. And that’s a fact. And so, this is about understanding the fundamental difference between constructive persuasion that builds and unifies, and destructive persuasion that divides and destroys.
Consider how Texas has mastered a single symbol, the lone star, through what we call unifying persuasion. That five pointed star isn't just a logo; it's a carefully constructed identity anchor that creates positive tribal cohesion. Every time a Texan sees that star, they're experiencing neurological reinforcement of their identity as independent, resilient, exceptional. Take the Star of David, a six-pointed star formed by two interlaced equilateral triangles, is a widely recognized symbol of Judaism and Jewish identity. Thus an introduction to appropriate persuasion, one that builds pride, fosters unity, and strengthens productive social bonds. It's the same principle that made Florida's "Sunshine State" branding so effective for decades through its use on vehicle tags to all types of state marketing campaigns.
This is why we maintain our three-word foundation: traditional, transparent, trustworthy. These represent our crucial persuasion, and we’re forthcoming and forward about it. This is the kind of persuasion that encourages people to think, to verify, to engage their rational faculties rather than bypass them. We know our clients do something we speak of often, and that is to think about it. Those who can’t and especially those who live in the slogan and meme world, are never a good long-term fit.
When people hear consistency over time, their brains develop trust, but it's earned trust based on demonstrated reliability that truly wins the day, race, and marathon.
Now, my perspective on this comes from an unusual vantage point. Born in the 1950s to parents who were both born in 1915, I witnessed firsthand how different forms of persuasion shaped the 20th century. My parents were born as World War I was in high gear, and through them and their siblings, I learned to distinguish between the appropriate persuasion that rallied Americans to defend democracy, and the negative, destructive, violence-prone persuasion that characterized our adversaries.
Think about this for a moment. As one who wore a uniform for a few years, the symbology and messaging was clear, and no different than that of the gang member. Again, think about it without becoming an emotional basket case. If you had an ah ha moment, well then, we’re connecting.
Communist persuasion operates through what we must recognize as fundamentally different principles,division, resentment, and the deliberate destruction of traditional bonds. Where American persuasion at its best seeks to elevate and unite, communist methodology relies on what researchers call "negative social proof", convincing people that their neighbors are enemies, that their traditions are oppressive, that their successes are stolen from others. This is destructive persuasion designed to weaken social fabric rather than strengthen it.
This is why the slogan, Make America Great Again works and is so upsetting to those who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The danger comes when we fail to call this out clearly. We saw this recently when leadership, involving the prior administration members, refused to engage in honest conversation rather than endless persuasion in the denial of obvious incompetence. When leaders fail to accept and name problems accurately, they create what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance" in the population. People know something is wrong, but without clear leadership calling it what it is, they become susceptible to more dangerous forms of influence.
The deeper game here involves understanding that persuasion is never neutral. It either builds or destroys, unifies or divides, elevates or degrades. At the individual level, appropriate persuasion works through appealing to people's better angels, their desire for truth, progress, and community. At the state level, unifying persuasion creates shared identity around positive values. At the national level, it builds what scholars call "imagined communities" based on mutual respect and common purpose.
But negative, destructive persuasion, the kind employed by communist regimes and other adversaries, both external and internal, works by exploiting fear, resentment, and tribal hatred. It convinces people that their problems are caused by other people rather than by systems or circumstances that can be improved.
The point here isn't just to call this out, but to understand the psychological infrastructure behind both approaches. I start with World War I because that's where my generational knowledge begins, where I can trace how American unifying persuasion successfully countered Axis authoritarianism, and later how critical persuasion helped us recognize and defeat communist influence during the Cold War.
And then we let our guard down. Especially during the 41st through the 44th Administrations. And as for the 46th Administration, it was a nightmare.
As you listen, I want you to engage in what psychologists call "metacognition.” Let me explain the term Metacognition, is the awareness and understanding of one's own thought processes, essentially "thinking about thinking". It involves actively monitoring, regulating, and evaluating one's own learning and cognitive processes to improve performance and problem-solving. This includes planning how to approach and ask yourself: Is this persuasion designed to help me think more clearly, or to stop me from thinking? Is it encouraging me to trust my fellow Americans, or to fear and resent them? Is it building something positive, or just tearing something down? This of the politician who used the word deplorables.
Business schools often teach SWOT, which is an acronym that stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. It's a strategic planning tool that is often used to assess an organization's current situation and help with decision-making.
Internal dialogue, also known as inner speech, inner monologue, or the "voice in your head", refers to the ongoing stream of verbal thoughts that some people experience as they navigate daily life. Research at the University of Nevada and other universities and independent cognitive scientists reveals that only 30-50% of people regularly experience this constant internal verbal commentary. Using experience sampling methods where participants report their inner experiences at random intervals throughout the day, studies show that even among those who do have inner speech, it occurs only about 20-26% of the time. This means that up to 70% of the population either lacks a consistent internal monologue or processes thoughts primarily through visual imagery, emotions, or what researchers describe as "wordless knowing". Those without an internal dialogue capability, a condition some researchers call "anendophasia," often report thinking generally in terms of pictures or broad concepts, and simply do not process thoughts verbally".
The presence or absence of an internal dialogue capability appears to be fundamentally connected to metacognitive capabilities, which is the ability to "think about thinking" that underlies critical analysis and strategic planning. Metacognition involves both monitoring and controlling one's own cognitive processes, enabling individuals to reflect on their reasoning patterns, assess their knowledge gaps, and regulate their problem-solving approaches. People with strong metacognitive skills can step back from immediate reactions to ask themselves diagnostic questions like "Why am I stuck?" or "What assumptions am I making?" or "How well do I understand this?" This capacity becomes essential for sophisticated analytical frameworks like SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats), which requires systematic self-reflection and the ability to examine one's organization or situation from multiple perspectives simultaneously. It should be noted that research indicates those without an internal dialogue show measurably weaker performance on tasks requiring verbal working memory and sequential processing, suggesting that the absence of inner speech may limit the cognitive resources necessary for the kind of structured, multi-layered thinking that effective strategic analysis demands. This finding has profound implications for leadership, decision-making, asset allocation, rebalancing, forecasting, and any endeavor requiring the ability to mentally rehearse scenarios, weigh competing considerations, or engage in the complex cognitive juggling that separates tactical thinking from true strategic insight.
Remember, in a world where persuasion has become both art and science, the principle that never fails is this: Think it through with full awareness of whether you're being encouraged to think or discouraged from thinking. Trust after you’ve verified not just the facts, but the intent behind how those facts are being presented. Now pause and reflect upon the Covid fiasco. Did you have an ah ha moment? If so, then we connected anonymously on a deep and personal level.
This is how the game has always been played, and why understanding the difference between constructive and destructive persuasion has never been more critical.
I would like to put what I wrote on Facebook as a single post or as a series of chapter-based posts, but Facebook has been protecting the prior administration for a long, long time. And because I wrote about persuasion, cognitive impairment, fraud and illegal acts with a questioning spin on the prior administration and positive spin on the current administration, which I cannot use by name or this post too will be deleted, I’ve violated the non-free speech rules of the face bag. And yes, the face bag is a private entity and they can basically build stifling algos all day long. The trick is to take key components off line, while casting a net for those most likely to want to jump into the boat. This is why I have always said the time for a discussion on the regulatory authority of social media sites as public utilities is long overdue. In other words, there comes a time when a social media site becomes so large and powerful that it has to follow similar rules as the government does in terms of free speech.
So I hope you have a chance to take a look at what I wrote, you'll need to follow the link if you haven’t already, because it cannot be put on my page here.
What you're about to read is a systematic deconstruction of persuasion,how it operates at the individual level, how it scales to state identity, and how it ultimately shapes national consciousness. This isn't your typical surface-level discussion about influence or marketing tactics. If you want a fast talking, flame throwing heap of hogwash, visit YouTube and you’ll find plenty of losers pitching their how to’s without having done it. And that’s a fact. And so, this is about understanding the fundamental difference between constructive persuasion that builds and unifies, and destructive persuasion that divides and destroys.
Consider how Texas has mastered a single symbol, the lone star, through what we call unifying persuasion. That five pointed star isn't just a logo; it's a carefully constructed identity anchor that creates positive tribal cohesion. Every time a Texan sees that star, they're experiencing neurological reinforcement of their identity as independent, resilient, exceptional. Take the Star of David, a six-pointed star formed by two interlaced equilateral triangles, is a widely recognized symbol of Judaism and Jewish identity. Thus an introduction to appropriate persuasion, one that builds pride, fosters unity, and strengthens productive social bonds. It's the same principle that made Florida's "Sunshine State" branding so effective for decades through its use on vehicle tags to all types of state marketing campaigns.
This is why we maintain our three-word foundation: traditional, transparent, trustworthy. These represent our crucial persuasion, and we’re forthcoming and forward about it. This is the kind of persuasion that encourages people to think, to verify, to engage their rational faculties rather than bypass them. We know our clients do something we speak of often, and that is to think about it. Those who can’t and especially those who live in the slogan and meme world, are never a good long-term fit.
When people hear consistency over time, their brains develop trust, but it's earned trust based on demonstrated reliability that truly wins the day, race, and marathon.
Now, my perspective on this comes from an unusual vantage point. Born in the 1950s to parents who were both born in 1915, I witnessed firsthand how different forms of persuasion shaped the 20th century. My parents were born as World War I was in high gear, and through them and their siblings, I learned to distinguish between the appropriate persuasion that rallied Americans to defend democracy, and the negative, destructive, violence-prone persuasion that characterized our adversaries.
Think about this for a moment. As one who wore a uniform for a few years, the symbology and messaging was clear, and no different than that of the gang member. Again, think about it without becoming an emotional basket case. If you had an ah ha moment, well then, we’re connecting.
Communist persuasion operates through what we must recognize as fundamentally different principles,division, resentment, and the deliberate destruction of traditional bonds. Where American persuasion at its best seeks to elevate and unite, communist methodology relies on what researchers call "negative social proof", convincing people that their neighbors are enemies, that their traditions are oppressive, that their successes are stolen from others. This is destructive persuasion designed to weaken social fabric rather than strengthen it.
This is why the slogan, Make America Great Again works and is so upsetting to those who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The danger comes when we fail to call this out clearly. We saw this recently when leadership, involving the prior administration members, refused to engage in honest conversation rather than endless persuasion in the denial of obvious incompetence. When leaders fail to accept and name problems accurately, they create what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance" in the population. People know something is wrong, but without clear leadership calling it what it is, they become susceptible to more dangerous forms of influence.
The deeper game here involves understanding that persuasion is never neutral. It either builds or destroys, unifies or divides, elevates or degrades. At the individual level, appropriate persuasion works through appealing to people's better angels, their desire for truth, progress, and community. At the state level, unifying persuasion creates shared identity around positive values. At the national level, it builds what scholars call "imagined communities" based on mutual respect and common purpose.
But negative, destructive persuasion, the kind employed by communist regimes and other adversaries, both external and internal, works by exploiting fear, resentment, and tribal hatred. It convinces people that their problems are caused by other people rather than by systems or circumstances that can be improved.
The point here isn't just to call this out, but to understand the psychological infrastructure behind both approaches. I start with World War I because that's where my generational knowledge begins, where I can trace how American unifying persuasion successfully countered Axis authoritarianism, and later how critical persuasion helped us recognize and defeat communist influence during the Cold War.
And then we let our guard down. Especially during the 41st through the 44th Administrations. And as for the 46th Administration, it was a nightmare.
As you listen, I want you to engage in what psychologists call "metacognition.” Let me explain the term Metacognition, is the awareness and understanding of one's own thought processes, essentially "thinking about thinking". It involves actively monitoring, regulating, and evaluating one's own learning and cognitive processes to improve performance and problem-solving. This includes planning how to approach and ask yourself: Is this persuasion designed to help me think more clearly, or to stop me from thinking? Is it encouraging me to trust my fellow Americans, or to fear and resent them? Is it building something positive, or just tearing something down? This of the politician who used the word deplorables.
Business schools often teach SWOT, which is an acronym that stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. It's a strategic planning tool that is often used to assess an organization's current situation and help with decision-making.
Internal dialogue, also known as inner speech, inner monologue, or the "voice in your head", refers to the ongoing stream of verbal thoughts that some people experience as they navigate daily life. Research at the University of Nevada and other universities and independent cognitive scientists reveals that only 30-50% of people regularly experience this constant internal verbal commentary. Using experience sampling methods where participants report their inner experiences at random intervals throughout the day, studies show that even among those who do have inner speech, it occurs only about 20-26% of the time. This means that up to 70% of the population either lacks a consistent internal monologue or processes thoughts primarily through visual imagery, emotions, or what researchers describe as "wordless knowing". Those without an internal dialogue capability, a condition some researchers call "anendophasia," often report thinking generally in terms of pictures or broad concepts, and simply do not process thoughts verbally".
The presence or absence of an internal dialogue capability appears to be fundamentally connected to metacognitive capabilities, which is the ability to "think about thinking" that underlies critical analysis and strategic planning. Metacognition involves both monitoring and controlling one's own cognitive processes, enabling individuals to reflect on their reasoning patterns, assess their knowledge gaps, and regulate their problem-solving approaches. People with strong metacognitive skills can step back from immediate reactions to ask themselves diagnostic questions like "Why am I stuck?" or "What assumptions am I making?" or "How well do I understand this?" This capacity becomes essential for sophisticated analytical frameworks like SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats), which requires systematic self-reflection and the ability to examine one's organization or situation from multiple perspectives simultaneously. It should be noted that research indicates those without an internal dialogue show measurably weaker performance on tasks requiring verbal working memory and sequential processing, suggesting that the absence of inner speech may limit the cognitive resources necessary for the kind of structured, multi-layered thinking that effective strategic analysis demands. This finding has profound implications for leadership, decision-making, asset allocation, rebalancing, forecasting, and any endeavor requiring the ability to mentally rehearse scenarios, weigh competing considerations, or engage in the complex cognitive juggling that separates tactical thinking from true strategic insight.
Remember, in a world where persuasion has become both art and science, the principle that never fails is this: Think it through with full awareness of whether you're being encouraged to think or discouraged from thinking. Trust after you’ve verified not just the facts, but the intent behind how those facts are being presented. Now pause and reflect upon the Covid fiasco. Did you have an ah ha moment? If so, then we connected anonymously on a deep and personal level.
This is how the game has always been played, and why understanding the difference between constructive and destructive persuasion has never been more critical.
I would like to put what I wrote on Facebook as a single post or as a series of chapter-based posts, but Facebook has been protecting the prior administration for a long, long time. And because I wrote about persuasion, cognitive impairment, fraud and illegal acts with a questioning spin on the prior administration and positive spin on the current administration, which I cannot use by name or this post too will be deleted, I’ve violated the non-free speech rules of the face bag. And yes, the face bag is a private entity and they can basically build stifling algos all day long. The trick is to take key components off line, while casting a net for those most likely to want to jump into the boat. This is why I have always said the time for a discussion on the regulatory authority of social media sites as public utilities is long overdue. In other words, there comes a time when a social media site becomes so large and powerful that it has to follow similar rules as the government does in terms of free speech.
So I hope you have a chance to take a look at what I wrote, you'll need to follow the link if you haven’t already, because it cannot be put on my page here.