Preview

Russian Journal of World Politics and Law of Nations

Advanced search

Cognitive Dimension of Security

https://doi.org/10.24833/RJWPLN-2022-3-4-26

Abstract

The present article is devoted to the analysis of the algocognitive culture, the new reality that humanity has already entered, but remains far from being understood. Today we can speak about dissolution of the concept of privacy: almost all actions of a person, including his daily movements, his social circle and values it shares, his corre­spondence and purchases are automatically observed, and completely transparent to information corporations. The problem of fake news has become insurmountable: its appearance in the information cascade is immediately converted into an event, making later investigations and refutations almost obsolete. A “cancel culture” has emerged, within which there is a priori no criteria for good and evil, where it has become pos­sible to “delete” any arrays of knowledge that do not meet the requirements of the self-proclaimed “new ethics” from the information circulation, and to ostracize people as­sociated with them. The authors compare the current state of affairs with the era of the dominance of sophists in ancient Greece, when the truth was determined depending on the situation, and finds relevant parallels. In this context, the authors formulate the concept of “cognitive vulnerability”: the new reality makes it possible to control of the masses, manipulating both their consumer and political behaviour. The authors define network reality as an alternative system of socialization, where the “network” ontol­ogy and values turn out to be more competitive than real ones, and therefore de facto displace them. The latter becomes possible due to a kind of “splitting” of the personal­ity, when the emotional reaction is de facto separated from real goal-oriented activity, and connected with virtual reality. Ruling algorithms in social networks are aimed at achieving this goal: as an example, the authors turn to the recent investigation carried out by The Wall Street Journal regarding Facebook: the MSI algorithm used by the latter provokes disputes and splits on every occasion. De facto, this leads to a situation where American information corporations are moving towards having sovereignty over the consciousness of external societies. This challenge has already been met by China, which nationalized algorithms on September 1, 2021, and handed control over them to the Communist Party. The authors analyse the steps taken by China and comes to the conclusion that, if this tactic works, China will become not only an economic, but also an ideological alternative to the United States, thereby making a bid to restore a bipolar world political system.

About the Authors

K. E. Koktysh
MGIMO University
Russian Federation

Kirill E. Koktysh – Dr. Sci. (Political Science), Associate Professor, Department of Political Theory

76 prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119454



A. Renard-Koktysh
MGIMO University
Russian Federation

Anna Renard-Koktysh – Doctoral Candidate, Department of Political Theory

76, Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119454



References

1. Abelson R. 1987. Struktury ubezhdenij [Structures of Persuasion]. In Sergeev V.M., Parshin P.B. (eds.) Yazyk i modelirovanie sociafnogo vzaimodejstviya. Moscow. P. 317—380. (In Russ.).

2. Akerlof G. 1994. Rynok limonov: neopredelyennost' kachestva I rynochnyj mekhanizm [The Market for 'Lemons': Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism]. Thesis. No. 5. P. 91—104. (In Russ.).

3. Aristotle. 1978a. O sofisticheskikh oproverzheniyakh [On sophistic refutations]. In Aristotle. Sobranie sochinenij v 4 tomakh. Tom 2. Moscow: Mysl. P. 535—593. (In Russ.).

4. Aristotle. 1978b. Kategorii [The Categories]. In: Aristotle. Sobranie sochinenij v 4 tomakh. Tom 2. Moscow: Mysl. P. 53—90. (In Russ.).

5. Arrighi G. 2006. The long twentieth century: money, power, and the origins of our times. Moscow: Territoriya budushchego. 472 p.

6. Axelrod R. (ed.) 1976. Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 404 p.

7. Bonham G.M., Shapiro M.J. (eds.) 1977. Thought and Action in Foreign Policy. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag. 189 p.

8. Chu J., Evans J. 2021. Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (41). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2021636118.

9. Foucault M. 1994. The Order of Things: an Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vin­tage Press.

10. Fukuyama F. 2015. Konets istorii iposlednij chelovek [The End of History and the Last Man]. Moscow: AST: 259 p.

11. Grigor'ev O. 2014. Epokha rosta [The Epoch of Growth]. Moscow: Kar'era Press. 448 p. (In Russ.).

12. Harrison J.E. 1913. The religion of ancient Greece. London. 66 p.

13. Horkheimer M. 2011. Zatmenie razuma [The Eclipse of Reason]. Kanon+. 224 p. (In Russ.).

14. Jonsson C. (ed). 1982. Cognitive Dynamics in International Politics. London. 210 p.

15. Koktysh K.E. 2019. Anglijskiij kontsept svobody: opyt dekonstruktsii [The English concept of freedom: experience of deconstruction]. Politiya. 2 (93). P. 48—65. DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-201993-2-48-65. (In Russ.).

16. Koktysh K.E. 2021a. Belorussiya: novaya geopoliticheskaya real'nost'? [Belarus: is it a new geo­political reality?]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. 3. P. 91—110. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2021.03.07. (In Russ.).

17. Koktysh K.E. 2021b. Diskurs racionalizma, svobody i demokratii [The discourse of rationalism, freedom and democracy]. Moscow: MGIMO-University. 320 p. (In Russ.).

18. Koktysh K.E. 2016a. Ontologiya ratsional'nogo (II) [Ontology of rationality (II)]. Politiya. No. 3 (82). P. 6-30. DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2016-82-3-6-30. (In Russ.).

19. Koktysh K.E. 2016b. Ontologiya ratsional'nogo (III). [Ontology of rationality (III)]. Politiya. No. 4 (83). P. 6-24. DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2016-83-4-6-24. (In Russ.).

20. Koktysh K.E. 2020. Sobytie svobody: opyt dekonstrukcii. [The event of liberty: experience of deconstruction]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. 2. P. 21-36. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.02.03(In Russ.).

21. Kruger J., Dunning D. 1999. Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psy­chology. 77(6). P. 1121-1134. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121. PMID 10626367.

22. Lakoff G., Johnsen M. 2004. Metafory, kotorymi my zhivyem [Metaphors we live by]. Moscow: Editorial URSS. 256 p. (In Russ.).

23. Lavelock J. 2019. Novacene: The Coming Age of Hyperintelligence. Allen Line.160 p.

24. Leites N. 1951. Operational code of the politburo. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill. 118 p.

25. Lenin V.I. 1967. Sobranie sochinenij v 55 tomakh. Tom 6 [Collection of works in 55 vol. Vol. 6]. Moscow. 619 p. (In Russ.).

26. Losev A.F. 2000. Istorija antichnoy estetiki [History of Ancient Aesthetics]. Moscow, “AST”. 626 p. (In Russ.).

27. Ortega y Gasset J. 2002. Vostanie mass [La rebelion de las masas]. Moscow: AST. 509 p. (In Russ.).

28. Plato. 1990. Protagor. In Plato. Sochineniya v 4 tomakh. Tom 1. Moscow: Mysl'. P. 418-476. (In Russ.).

29. Rathje S., Van Bavel J., Van der Linden S. 2021. Out-group animosity drives engagement on so­cial media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (26). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2024292118.

30. Sergeev V.M. 2013. Narodovlastie na sluzhbe elit [Democracy in the service of the elites]. Mos­cow: MGIMO-University. 265 p. (In Russ.).

31. Sergeev V.M., Alekseenkova E.S., Koktysh K.E., Kuz'min A.S., Sergeev K.V. 2009. Prolegomeny k antropologii nashego vremeni [Prolegomena to the anthropology crisis of our time]. Moscow. 261 p. (In Russ.).

32. Sergeev V.M., Alekseenkova E.S., Koktysh K.E., Orlova A.S., Petrov K.E., Chimiris E.S. 2011. Novoe prostranstvo mirovoj politiki: vzglyad iz SSHA [The new dimension of world politics: a view from the USA]. Moscow: MGMO-University. 134 p. (In Russ.).

33. Shrier A. 2021. Irreversible Damage. The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. Regnery Publishing. 276 p.

34. Stieger M., Fluckiger Ch., Ruegger D., Kowatsch T., Roberts B.W., Allemand M. 2021. Chang­ing personality traits with the help of a digital personality change intervention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (8). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2017548118.

35. Taleb N. 2014. Antikhrupkost'. Kak izvlech vygodu iz khaosa [Antifragility. How to benefit from chaos]. Moscow. 768 p. (In Russ.).

36. Taleb N. 2007. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Random House: London: 366 p.

37. Wagner C., Strohmaier M., Olteanu A. et al. 2021. Measuring algorithmically infused societies. Nature. V. 595. P. 197-204. DOI 10.1038/s41586-021-03666-1.

38. Ward А. 2021. People mistake the internet's knowledge for their own. Proceedings of the Na­tional Academy of Sciences. 118 (43). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2105061118.

39. Zizek S. 2008. Ustrojstvo razryva. Parallaxsnoe videnie (The Parallax View). Moscow: Europe. 516 p.


Review

For citations:


Koktysh K.E., Renard-Koktysh A. Cognitive Dimension of Security. Russian Journal of World Politics and Law of Nations. 2022;1(3):4-26. https://doi.org/10.24833/RJWPLN-2022-3-4-26

Views: 1324


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2949-6322 (Online)