Empathy triggers are used to mobilize network swarms, which is, as we have seen with the response to the invasion of Ukraine, a key element of network warfare. Let’s figure out how they work.
What does an empathy trigger look like?
Here’s a widely shared picture that shows a pregnant Ukrainian woman on a stretcher in front of a building shattered by a Russian bombardment (both she and her baby died).
Pictures with descriptions like this are something we have seen in traditional media (TV, newspapers, magazines, etc.) for a century, and although they have an impact on us, that impact is muted. It feels slightly removed due to the nature of the medium.
However, everything changes when that picture and description of a victim are in a social media post. Due to the nature of the medium, instead of simply evoking sympathy or sadness, it can often trigger a strong empathic reaction. For example:
Empathy triggers like these, distributed to tens of millions of people online, can mobilize millions into action for protest or war. An excellent example of this is the smartphone video of George Floyd:
Social networking has rewired us
Empathy triggers work so well because social networking and smartphones have fundamentally changed how our brains process news. It has rewired us. Here’s how:
Scan. We can’t read all the news we receive, there’s too much of it, and it would be impossible to make sense of it all even if we did. Instead of reading it, we scan it, looking for novelty and patterns.
Social cue. We don’t simply read the news and form opinions in isolation anymore. Online, the news is packaged as a social cue that lets us figure out what other people are thinking.
Addiction. The news isn’t just a one-way flow of information anymore. Online, it’s interactive, with social feedback loops and induced hormone release (cortisol in fear of getting it wrong and dopamine for getting it right) that make it addictive.
Addictively scanning our news feed for social cues doesn’t just make us more vulnerable to empathy triggers; it encourages us to seek them out.
Empathic Communication
Another contributing factor is that empathy isn’t simply sympathy; it’s a powerful pre-verbal form of communication. A form of communication that humanity has only recently learned to mitigate with reason in large group settings. Here’s how empathic communication works:
Empathic communication is an involuntary process if you are not actively resisting it. As a result, this form of communication is usually limited to children (it’s critical for socialization) and for intimate groups (family).
In empathic communication, we build an internal model of the other person's feelings based on cues (face, body, screams, etc.). We feel what the victim feels: their fear, anger, and pain. Our faces grimace in pain like the victim, and we can feel the knee on our necks (George Floyd). We connect at a deep level.
When we empathize with victims, they are no longer strangers; we form a fictive kinship with them. They are now part of our tribe, and they are being threatened.
Network mobilization
When we combine these elements — addictive social cue scanning and involuntary connections that produce fictive kinship — we get a powerful tool for mobilizing a networked swarm.
An event occurs, and empathy triggers are built that show the victims of that event in distress or under attack. These empathy triggers are spread
far and wide online (often to tens of millions of people).
People actively seek these empathy triggers (addiction and social approval), automatically connecting them to these victims, forming the fictive kinship needed for tribalization.
This tribalization turns the aggressor into the enemy of the tribe. Tribal enemies are seen as existential threats that must be destroyed.
The effectiveness of this method of mobilization is enhanced (which makes it vulnerable to manipulation) when:
A network is already in place to produce empathy triggers and provide early social reinforcement when the event occurs.
People have been reflexively programmed to be reactive to the tribal enemy being targeted.
The swarm grows fast and large enough to overwhelm, censor, and intimidate every other response.
The 'one death is a tragedy...' line comes to mind. The ability to frictionlessly beam a constant stream of these 'tragedies' to Western populations that are overly... um shall we say weighted on the empathy side now is an absolute disaster. Do you think it is possible to introduce necessary informational gatekeeping at a lower level scale than a national governmental response ala separate internets like in China or Russia?
I think of earlier versions of Internet forum culture which was both decentralized and yet had the necessary gatekeeping to be able to not devolve into these network swarms you describe.
The medium is the message.