Charm Upgrade

Learn · Ego, chase and 'secret' desire, checked

Borrowed authority and "secret" tricks

Lesson 7 of 7 in this module · about 7 minutes · Romantic communication

The idea

A credential or an agency’s name in an advert is a reason to check its claim, not a reason to believe it, and five checks do that. This is a course principle, not a research finding. Here is an invented advert.

The advert shows no trick, so none is described here. The claim page for this kind of advert does the same.

  1. A claimed credential. In experiments, a source presented as an expert tended to persuade more, but not always 1. In one experiment with students, expertise counted most for readers who were not personally invested 2. “Our psychology professor” names nobody, so it can’t be weighed. A name, a board or a paper can be looked up, and none of them tests the method.

  2. A claimed agency origin. The advert names no agency, program, document or date. A real program can be checked in the public record. According to the printed record of a 1977 Senate hearing, the CIA’s Director described MKULTRA, a real program that ran from 1953 to 1964 and funded research on drugs and behavioral modification 3. The same record says most of its files were destroyed in 1973 4, and in one exchange the Director agreed that it produced few useful results 5. A real agency origin would neither make a technique work nor make it acceptable to use on a person.

  3. Control “on command”. The advert promises a result for anyone. In two speed-dating studies from one group, more than 100 traits and preferences reported before meeting did not predict which particular person someone would end up wanting 6. Nothing here supports a trick that works on anyone, and this course teaches no way to make someone chase or fixate, at any strength.

  4. No method, no replication. The advert does not say who was tested, how, compared with whom, or whether anyone repeated it. By the labels of M01-L4, that makes it a Marketing claim: no evidence has been shown, which is not the same as false.

  5. Thinking about you nonstop. That describes thoughts and actions, not what anyone feels about you. Curiosity is wanting to find something out. Rumination is the same thoughts going round with nothing new in them; two reviews link repetitive thought to depression and anxiety, not to positive feeling 7 (M10-L3). Anxiety is worry or dread about what might happen. Voluntary interest is contact someone chooses, unprompted: starting a talk, suggesting a plan, coming back (M03-L7). You can see a choice, not the reason. This sort is the course’s own.

Underneath the advert is an ordinary wish: wanting interest you can see, and not knowing how to ask. M11-L5 covers invitations, and M17-L7 covers staying steady while you wait.

Why it matters

In experiments, a source presented as an expert usually persuaded more than a less credible one, though the effect depended on the situation and could reverse 1. Being persuaded by a credential is not the same as testing the method.

What it looks like

Example

Priya, 39, sees an invented advert: a “psychology professor” shares an agency’s hidden trick to make anyone think about you nonstop. She asks who the professor is, which agency, what the method is and what was tested. Nothing is shown. Then she asks what made her stop: she can’t tell whether Daniel, 42, from her climbing gym, wants to see her again. At the gym she says, “I’m going to the market Saturday. Want to come?” She takes his answer.

The same moment, handled the other way

Counterexample

Priya takes the advert’s word because of the credential and asks nothing about the method. When Daniel texts twice that night, she takes it as the advert’s promise coming true.

Two texts show that he sent two texts, and she has asked him nothing.

The one thing to remember

The rule

Treat a borrowed name as a reason to check, then say what you’d like, once, and accept the answer.

Run the checks on the advert, not on the person. A yes is theirs to give, and so is a no.

Try it now

Item 1 of this lesson’s set: Who is the expert?

Open the exercise set

In the real world (optional)

If you like, next time an advert names an expert or an agency, ask who the person is and what could be checked, and notice what the advert doesn’t show.

What this doesn’t tell you

The checks do not show that an advert is false. The hearing record gives the agency’s and Congress’s own account, not an independent evaluation, and it describes research on drugs and behavior, not dating 3. The reviews on repetitive thought concern distress and problems, not thoughts about a person 7.

Why do we believe this?

Each numbered mark in the text opens the evidence behind that sentence. Every claim in this course carries one of five labels.

Well supported
A meta-analysis or several independent studies agree, with no serious failure to replicate.
Supported with caveats
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings.
Plausible
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question.
Speculative
An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested.
Marketing claim
Something a seller says about their product, without published evidence.
  1. Supported with caveatsA message from a source presented as an expert or otherwise credible usually persuades more than the same message from a low-credibility source, with expertise the largest source effect, but the effect is conditional and can reverse.

    Why this label

    Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Demonstrates: a meta-analysis of source-effect studies found that, among studies reporting significant findings, source manipulations explained 9% of variance in persuasion on average and the expert versus non-expert manipulation 16%, the largest source effect (Wilson & Sherrell 1993). A review of five decades of studies reached the same direction for main effects but found that credibility became a liability under certain conditions that depend on the source, the message, the channel and the receiver (Pornpitakpan 2004). Marketing framing: a credential or an institution's name makes a claim more believable and so more persuasive, whether or not anyone checks it (common framing, unattributed). What the studies show is that credibility cues move opinion on average in experiments; they do not show that the credentialed source's method works. Bears on A6.1: a claimed credential raises persuasion without testing the claim, so the lesson asks what could be checked: who, published where, by what method, replicated or not.

    What it does not show

    • The 9% and 16% figures cover studies reporting significant findings only, so they probably overstate the typical effect.
    • Pornpitakpan (2004) is a narrative review, not a meta-analysis, and finds the effect depends on message, receiver, channel and other variables.
    • The outcomes are attitudes and intentions in experiments; neither source says that a credible source's advice works, or what happens to a credential that cannot be checked.
    • The abstracts do not report effect sizes for behaviour, so nothing here shows a change in what people do.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Sources

  2. PlausibleA source's expertise shapes attitudes most when people are not personally invested in the issue; when they are, the quality of the arguments counts for more.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: in an experiment with undergraduates, a counterattitudinal message with strong or weak arguments came from a high-expertise or a low-expertise source, on an issue that was highly or little relevant to the reader. With high personal relevance, attitudes followed the quality of the arguments; with low relevance, they followed the source's expertise (Petty, Cacioppo & Goldman 1981). The 2004 review lists receiver and message variables among the conditions under which credibility matters, or turns into a liability (Pornpitakpan 2004). Marketing framing: an authority label does the persuading when the audience scrolls past the argument (common framing, unattributed). Bears on A6.1: an advert that leads with a credential and offers no method asks the audience to rely on the label, so the lesson moves the reader from the label to the argument and the evidence.

    What it does not show

    • One classic experiment with undergraduates, one issue and one kind of message; the review supports the direction of moderation in general but not this exact result.
    • The experiment manipulated stated expertise on a counterattitudinal topic, not dating or relationship advice.
    • Attitudes were measured shortly after exposure; nothing shows lasting change or behaviour.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Sources

  3. Supported with caveatsProject MKULTRA was a real CIA programme that ran from 1953 to 1964 and funded research on drugs and behavioural modification, according to the CIA's own Director in 1977.

    Why this label

    Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Demonstrates: in the printed record of the joint Senate hearing of 3 August 1977, Admiral Stansfield Turner, Director of Central Intelligence, called MKULTRA "a closely held CIA project conducted from 1953-1964", an umbrella under which sensitive subprojects covered, among other things, "research on drugs and behavioral modification" (PDF p. 8). A 1963 CIA Inspector General memorandum, which reaches the record through the Church Committee report excerpt it reproduces (footnote 11; PDF p. 72, printed p. 389), gives its purpose as materials for clandestine operations "to control human behavior". The record groups the 149 recovered subprojects into 15 categories (PDF p. 9), among them drugs and alcohol, hypnosis, covert delivery of drugs using magicians' techniques, studies of behaviour and motivation, polygraph research and biological agents. A search of the record's text layer found none of the words dating, romantic, attraction, seduce or obsess (OCR errors could hide a word, so this is a search result, not proof). The record does include testimony that a CIA psychologist interviewed prostitutes at a safe house about sexual habits and about what they knew of covertly drugging people (PDF pp. 61-62); it describes information-gathering, not a method of creating desire. Marketing framing: adverts that invoke a secret "CIA mind-control" technique borrow the programme's name to lend authority to a technique (common framing, unattributed). Neither the passages cited nor that search support a claim that any word, phrase or routine can make a person want or chase another. Bears on A6.1: a claimed intelligence-agency origin is a story to check against a primary source, and the primary source describes drug research, not a way to create desire.

    What it does not show

    • A single printed hearing record: it reports what the CIA and members of Congress said about the programme, not an independent evaluation.
    • Records of the programme were largely destroyed in 1973 (see mkultra-record-c2), so the record does not document the programme's full extent or methods.
    • The stated purpose comes from a 1963 CIA Inspector General memorandum quoted in the Church Committee report excerpt that the record reproduces (footnote 11), not from the 1977 witnesses.
    • Says what the programme was and when it ran. It is not a source on any commercial product, course or claim.

    Who it applies to

    Depends on the setting and the people involved.

    Source

  4. Supported with caveatsMost of the CIA's MKULTRA records were destroyed in January 1973 on the then CIA Director's instruction, and the seven boxes of mostly financial documents found in 1977 left the programme only partly documented.

    Why this label

    Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Demonstrates: Senator Edward Kennedy's opening statement says the records of the CIA's human-experimentation activities were "destroyed in January 1973, at the instruction of then CIA Director Richard Helms" (PDF p. 7). Admiral Turner's prepared statement (PDF pp. 8-9) says that until the 1977 discovery it was believed that "all of the MKULTRA files dealing with behavioral modification had been destroyed in 1973", and that the seven boxes then found held 149 subprojects: "the recovered folders are finance folders", mostly approvals of funds and vouchers, with few status reports on operations or progress. Senator Kennedy added that the recovered records revealed a far more extensive series of experiments than had been thought, involving 86 universities or institutions (PDF p. 7). An excerpt of the Church Committee report (Book I) reproduced in the record (PDF p. 72, printed p. 389) says the records were destroyed by Technical Services Division staff on the verbal orders of its chief, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, who testified that he was carrying out Helms's verbal order, which Helms confirmed. Marketing framing: none common. Bears on A6.1: an advert cannot cite a hidden CIA method as settled fact when the agency's own records of the programme were destroyed and the surviving ones are mostly financial.

    What it does not show

    • Single hearing record; the account of who ordered the destruction rests on testimony quoted in the record, not on the destroyed documents.
    • The 1977 discovery shows that not all records were destroyed, so "most" is the wording the record supports, not "all".
    • Says nothing about what the destroyed records contained.

    Who it applies to

    Depends on the setting and the people involved.

    Source

  5. PlausibleIn 1977 the CIA's Director told the Senate that the agency had no evidence of great usefulness from the MKULTRA experiments and agreed they produced few useful results; a CIA witness knew of no drug developed under the programme that had reached operational use.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: in one exchange (PDF p. 47), asked by Senator Huddleston whether knowledge from the experiments had been useful or applied to present operations, Admiral Turner said "we have no evidence of great usefulness on this"; asked whether the experimentation produced few useful results or had little application, he replied "I think that is basically correct", adding that the agency had been concerned at the time about what might be done to CIA prisoners abroad. A CIA witness, Mr. Laubinger, said he knew of no drug or similar product developed under the programme that ever reached operational use. This is the agency's own assessment given in a hearing. It concerns the programme's research outputs, mainly drugs; it supplies no evidence that any programme output could reliably control behaviour. Marketing framing: government "mind control" is said to work on command (common framing, unattributed). Bears on A6.1: the agency's own account of its results is closer to "little of use" than to a method that works on command.

    What it does not show

    • The agency's own assessment, in one exchange, with a leading question and a hedged answer ("basically correct"); not an independent evaluation.
    • Turner's answer and Laubinger's remark concern drugs and operational use, not psychological or social methods.
    • Much of the programme's record had been destroyed (see mkultra-record-c2), so the assessment rests on incomplete files.
    • Does not show that no such effect exists, only that these witnesses had no evidence of one.

    Who it applies to

    Depends on the setting and the people involved.

    Source

  6. PlausibleBefore two people meet, more than 100 of their self-reported traits and preferences did not predict which particular person they would end up wanting.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: in two speed-dating studies, models fed more than 100 pre-date self-reports predicted some of how much people desired others in general and how much others desired them in general, but could not predict desire for a specific partner beyond those tendencies; in a preregistered 7-month study of 208 singles, the perceiver-by-target compatibility account got only modest support. Marketing framing: a single hidden attraction trigger that works on a particular person (see dating-frameworks-c7).

    What it does not show

    • Same research group produced both studies; no independent replication found
    • Speed-dating and young single samples, mostly US
    • Self-reported traits; models predict statistically, not for an individual
    • Absence of prediction here does not show compatibility does not exist, only that these measures did not capture it
    • Eastwick et al. 2022 ran a different design (7 months, 208 singles), not a replication

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Sources

  7. Supported with caveatsThinking about something repeatedly is not a sign of positive feeling: reviews link repetitive thought and rumination to depression and anxiety, and its effects depend on content and context.

    Why this label

    Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Nolen-Hoeksema and colleagues reviewed evidence that rumination worsens depression and problem solving and erodes social support. Watkins reviewed when repetitive thought is constructive (planning, recovery) versus unconstructive, depending on valence, context and abstract versus concrete thinking.

    What it does not show

    • Both sources are narrative reviews, not systematic reviews or meta-analyses, which is why the level is not well-supported.
    • Reviews concern rumination on distress and problems, not on a person one is attracted to; applying it to attraction is an extrapolation.
    • Much of the evidence is correlational and self-report, with an experimental subset.
    • Constructive repetitive thought exists, so the claim is that preoccupation is not diagnostic of attraction, not that it is always harmful.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Sources

More practice

The rest of the set, Borrowed authority and "secret" tricks: exercises: 6 items, about 13 minutes. Decide what the evidence supports, and how well. Open the exercise set.