Aller au contenu

COGSEC — Article 002

Pre-Briefing of New Arrivals

Preventive Social Control Protocol

Disclaimer

This article constitutes a literature review and a theoretical analysis of social control mechanisms documented in academic literature. It does not constitute:

  • A diagnosis of a specific situation
  • An accusation against identifiable individuals or institutions
  • A substitute for professional evaluation (psychological, legal, medical)
  • An incitement to self-diagnosis

The mechanisms described are derived from works published in peer-reviewed journals (Science, Sociometry, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology) and reference works in sociology and social psychology. The reader is invited to consult the primary sources.

Abstract

This article analyzes the mechanism of pre-briefing of new arrivals, a social control technique consisting of transmitting a pre-established narrative to anyone coming into contact with a target, prior to direct interaction. The study examines the cognitive foundations of the mechanism, its transmission vectors, its differential effects according to cognitive profiles, and the conditions for its collapse.

Keywords: social control, confirmation bias, stigmatization, exclusion, neuroatypical profiles

1. Introduction

Control of the first impression constitutes a fundamental lever in interpersonal and institutional power dynamics. This document examines a specific mechanism: the preventive transmission of a narrative concerning a target individual to any potential new contact.

The objective of this technique: to establish an a priori interpretive framework that filters all subsequent interactions.

2. Definition and Mechanism

2.1 Operational Definition

Pre-briefing of new arrivals (pre-arrival narrative framing) refers to the systematic transmission of oriented information concerning a target individual to any person likely to come into contact with them, prior to any direct interaction.

2.2 Operational Sequence

PHASE 1 — IDENTIFICATION
└── Detection of a potential new contact
    (professional, medical, social, familial)

PHASE 2 — INTERCEPTION
└── Establishing contact with the newcomer
    BEFORE interaction with the target

PHASE 3 — TRANSMISSION
└── Implantation of the narrative
    (diagnosis, label, warning, selected anecdote)

PHASE 4 — ANCHORING
└── First interaction filtered by the narrative
    Activation of confirmation bias

PHASE 5 — LOCKING
└── Any contrary data rejected or reinterpreted
    ("Exactly what they told you")

2.3 Cognitive Foundations

The mechanism exploits two documented biases:

Confirmation bias — The tendency to search for, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms pre-existing beliefs.

Reference

  • Wason, P.C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12(3), 129-140. DOI: 10.1080/17470216008416717 | PubMed

Primacy effect in impression formation — Information received first exerts a disproportionate influence on overall judgment.

Reference

  • Asch, S.E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258-290. DOI: 10.1037/h0055756 | PsycNET | PubMed

3. Taxonomy of Transmitted Content

3.1 Transmitted Elements

Category Function Example
Diagnosis Medical interpretive framework "Bipolar disorder", "Borderline"
Label Dehumanization "Difficult", "Toxic", "Manipulative"
Warning Activation of hostile vigilance "Be careful with him/her"
Selected anecdote Pre-fabricated proof Isolated incident presented as pattern
Behavioral directive Guidance of interactions "Don't believe them if..."

3.2 Omitted Elements

Category Reason for Omission
Factual context Would complicate the narrative
Target's version Risk of contradiction
Behaviors non-conforming to the narrative Would weaken the anchoring
Verifiable sources Would allow contestation
Temporal evolution Would suggest the possibility of change

4. Transmission Vectors

4.1 Institutional Vector (Automated)

The file (medical, HR, judicial) functions as a permanent and self-executing briefing.

Reference

Goffman describes the constitution of the file as a central element of the "moral career" of the institutionalized individual: "The case record is the key means by which his past is reconstructed" (p. 155).

4.2 Interpersonal Vector (Active)

Direct verbal transmission by an informant to the new contact.

Professional context: Manager → Team, Colleague → Colleague
Medical context: Caregiver → Caregiver, Family → Institution
Family context: Parent → Spouse, Family → Extended network
Social context: Friend → Friend, Community → New members

4.3 Hybrid Vector

Combination of the institutional file and interpersonal transmission, creating a redundancy that reinforces the perceived credibility of the narrative.

5. Differential Effect According to Cognitive Profile

5.1 General Population

5.1.1 Perspective of the Briefed (Briefing Recipient)

  • Integrates the briefing into the reference framework
  • Interprets interactions according to the narrative
  • Does not question the source
  • Confirms the briefing to the network

5.1.2 Perspective of the Target

  • Perceives a diffuse discomfort without identifying the source
  • Attributes difficulties to personal factors
  • Does not connect hostile reactions to a common origin
  • Tends to internalize exclusion as deserved

Reference

  • Lemert, E. (1962). Paranoia and the Dynamics of Exclusion. Sociometry, 25(1), 2-20. DOI: 10.2307/2786028 | JSTOR

5.2 HPI/ASD Profile (High Intellectual Potential / Autism Spectrum Disorder)

5.2.1 Perspective of the Neurotypical Briefed Facing an HPI/ASD Target

The neurotypical briefed tends to:

  • Apply the transmitted filter without questioning
  • Interpret verbal precision as "rigidity"
  • Interpret detection of inconsistencies as "paranoia"
  • Systematically confirm the briefing

5.2.2 Perspective of the HPI/ASD Target

Signal Detection:

Perceived Signal Target's Interpretation
Evaluative gaze pre-interaction Prior information held
Micro-expressions of distrust Briefing received
Abnormal proxemic distance Active differential treatment
Oriented questions Verification of a narrative
Suspicious coherence between strangers Prior communication

The literature on autism documents an increased capacity to detect pattern violations, including in social interactions:

Reference

Subjective Experience of the Target:

State Origin
Confusion Gap between own behavior and received reactions
Hypervigilance Accumulation of inconsistent signals
Self-doubt Inability to validate one's perceptions
Anticipatory anxiety Each new contact = potentially briefed
Isolation Impossibility of "starting fresh"

Behavioral Responses and Their Reinterpretation:

Target's Response Reinterpretation by the System
Verbalizes the detected inconsistency "Paranoia" — confirmation
Withdraws from interactions "Social avoidance" — confirmation
Documents incidents "Obsessive" — confirmation
Maintains neutrality "Pathological masking" — confirmation
Emotional reaction "Instability" — confirmation

This structure constitutes a double bind in the Batesonian sense:

Reference

  • Bateson, G., Jackson, D.D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1(4), 251-264. DOI: 10.1002/bs.3830010402 | Wiley | PsycNET

The Operational Paradox:

CAPACITY: Superior pattern recognition (Baron-Cohen, 2009)
EFFECT: Faster and more precise briefing detection

PARADOXICAL CONSEQUENCE:
The detection itself becomes proof of the diagnosis
"Interpretive delusion" / "Paranoid ideation"

= The more accurate the perception, the more it is pathologized

"The paranoid relationship involves a spurious interaction process in which the weights of reality are progressively stacked against the individual." — Lemert, E. (1962). Paranoia and the Dynamics of Exclusion. Sociometry, 25(1), p. 7.

5.2.3 Perspective of the HPI/ASD Briefed (Systemic Risk)

The briefed individual with an HPI/ASD profile constitutes a destabilization vector of the briefing network:

Reverse Contamination Sequence:

PHASE 1 — RECEPTION
└── Receives the briefing (like others)

PHASE 2 — CONTACT
└── Direct interaction with the target

PHASE 3 — GAP DETECTION
└── Direct observation ≠ Transmitted narrative
└── Cognitive inability to ignore the inconsistency

PHASE 4 — QUESTIONING
└── Return to the briefer
└── "The transmitted information does not match my observations"

PHASE 5 — PROPAGATION
└── Communication with other briefed individuals
└── "Have you observed the same thing?"
└── Introduction of doubt in the network

PHASE 6 — FRACTURING
└── Emergence of multiple versions
└── Loss of briefer credibility
└── Local collapse of the unique narrative

Characteristics of the HPI/ASD Briefed and Systemic Impact:

Cognitive Characteristic Effect on the Briefing Network
Intolerance to inconsistency Active questioning of the narrative
Factual communication Propagation of contradictory observations
Search for coherence Confrontation of versions
Low sensitivity to social pressure Resistance to conformity
Tendency to documentation Creation of verifiable traces

System Reaction to the Failing Briefed:

Identified Threat Deployed Countermeasure
Questions the briefing Extension of briefing to their subject
Communicates observations Isolation from the group
Defends the target "Got manipulated by the target"
Documents the gaps "Also presents problematic traits"

The briefed who detects the gap and verbalizes it becomes a potential target, leading to an extension of the control perimeter.

6. Detection Indicators

6.1 New Contact Side Indicators

Observable Probable Significance
Immediate evaluative gaze Pre-loaded interpretive grid
Early oriented questions Search for briefing confirmation
Disproportionate reaction to neutral stimuli Active filter
Knowledge of unshared information Prior transmission
Non-verbal exchanges with third parties Active coordination

6.2 Systemic Indicators

Observable Probable Significance
All new contacts "informed" Systematic briefing
Inter-individual coherence of reactions Shared narrative
Impossibility of "starting fresh" Active locking
Meetings prior to interactions Transmission in progress

7. Complementary Academic Documentation

7.1 The Rosenhan Experiment (1973)

Eight pseudo-patients admitted to psychiatric institutions based on a single simulated symptom. Post-admission, all normal behaviors were interpreted through the lens of the initial diagnosis.

Reference

Quote: "Once a person is designated as abnormal, all of his other behaviors and characteristics are colored by that label. Indeed, that label is so powerful that many of the pseudopatients' normal behaviors were overlooked entirely or profoundly misinterpreted." (p. 253)

7.2 Stigma (Goffman, 1963)

Analysis of the transformation of social identity through labeling. The stigma becomes the primary filter of perception.

Reference

7.3 Power-Knowledge (Foucault, 1975)

The power to define normality and deviance constitutes itself a control mechanism. The diagnosis is performative.

Reference

  • Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et Punir: Naissance de la Prison [Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison]. Paris: Gallimard. ISBN 978-2-07-072968-5. WorldCat OCLC 3328401 | Open Library

7.4 Symbolic Violence (Bourdieu, 1979)

The imposition of perception categories that are internalized by the dominated themselves.

Reference

8. Countermeasures

8.1 External Documentation

Constitution of verifiable traces outside the system where the briefing operates: - Independent timestamping - Testimonies from non-briefed contacts - Objective proofs of competence

8.2 Witnesses Outside the System

Maintaining contacts who have not been exposed to the briefing and can constitute an independent external memory.

8.3 Accessible Counter-Narrative

Making available an alternative documented and verifiable version of the facts.

8.4 Central Principle

BRIEFING EFFECTIVENESS = f(NARRATIVE MONOPOLY)

COUNTERMEASURE = BREAKING THE MONOPOLY

When multiple versions coexist and one is documented,
the briefing loses its unique framing function.

9. Case Study

9.1 Protocol

Retrospective analysis of a case documented over 8 years, involving successive briefings in medical, familial, and professional contexts.

9.2 Chronology

T₀: Initial hospitalization
     └── Constitution of the file with narrative N₁

T₀+24 months: Second episode
     └── Requisition of T₀ file
     └── Narrative N₁ transmitted to new staff
     └── Behaviors interpreted via N₁
     └── Extended hospitalization (24 months)

T₀+72 months: Contact with former network member
     └── Contact has access to a version of the file
     └── Observation: visible stress, avoidance
     └── Hypothesis: dissonance between real target and narrative

T₀+96 months: External documentation initiated
     └── Constitution of independent traces
     └── Identification of briefing patterns
     └── Access to files via legal procedures
     └── Highlighting of gaps between narrative and documentation

9.3 Observations

  1. The initial file functioned as a permanent automated briefing
  2. The mention of "history" transformed each evaluation into confirmation
  3. Initiating external documentation modified network behaviors (visible stress signs, visible coordination)
  4. The target's pattern recognition, initially pathologized, proved to be factually accurate

10. Discussion: Hypothesis on Targeting of HPI/ASD Profiles

Methodological note: This section presents an interpretive hypothesis derived from mechanism analysis. It has not been empirically validated and should be considered a research avenue, not an established conclusion.

Analysis of the briefing mechanism reveals a structural vulnerability: the HPI/ASD briefed who detects the gap between narrative and reality.

If this analysis is correct, HPI/ASD profiles would represent a systemic threat to briefing-based social control networks:

HPI/ASD PROFILE (documented characteristics):
├── Detects inconsistencies — Baron-Cohen (2009)
├── Factual communication — Attwood (2006)
├── Resistance to social pressure — Cage et al. (2018)
├── Tendency toward systematization — Baron-Cohen (2009)
│
HYPOTHETICAL IMPLICATION:
= Potential reverse contamination vector
= Risk of unique narrative collapse

This analysis suggests — without demonstrating — that preventive targeting of HPI/ASD profiles could constitute a strategy for neutralization of destabilization vectors.

Limitation: This hypothesis would require a controlled empirical study to be validated. It is presented here as an interpretive framework, not as established fact.

Complementary references:

Reference

Reference

  • Cage, E., Di Monaco, J., & Newell, V. (2018). Experiences of Autism Acceptance and Mental Health in Autistic Adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(2), 473-484. DOI: 10.1007/s10803-017-3342-7 | PubMed | Springer

11. Limitations of the Analysis

11.1 Methodological Limitations

Limitation Implication
Absence of original empirical study The mechanisms described are derived from existing literature
Case study N=1 Illustrative value, not demonstrative
No control group Impossibility of establishing causal links
Potential selection bias The cited sources support the proposed analysis

11.2 Interpretive Limitations

  • Detection of a "briefing" by a target may be subject to multiple interpretations (real briefing, target's bias, coincidence, other)
  • Attribution of intentions to briefing actors remains inferential
  • HPI/ASD profiles present heterogeneity that limits generalization

11.3 Risks of Use

This analytical framework can be misused to: - Interpret any social difficulty as resulting from a briefing - Avoid legitimate personal self-examination - Feed an unfounded victim posture

Recommendation: Any application of this framework to a personal situation should be discussed with a qualified professional (psychologist, psychiatrist, lawyer depending on context).

12. Conclusion

Pre-briefing of new arrivals constitutes a social control technique exploiting fundamental cognitive biases (confirmation, primacy) to establish an interpretive framework prior to any interaction. Its effectiveness rests on narrative monopoly.

Neuroatypical profiles (HPI/ASD) present a dual particularity: 1. As targets, their detection capacity can be turned against them (pathologization of pattern recognition) 2. As briefed, they can constitute a systemic risk through their propensity to detect and propagate gaps between narrative and observation

External documentation and breaking the narrative monopoly constitute the main countermeasures identified in the literature.

Final note: The mechanisms described in this article exist on a continuum. Their presence in a given situation is a matter of degree, not binary category. Identification of a pattern does not constitute proof of its intentional application.

Author Declaration

The author declares:

  • No financial conflict of interest
  • No institutional affiliation at the time of writing
  • That this article constitutes a contribution to the field of cognitive security (COGSEC), an emerging field not yet formally established

References

Academic Sources

🦆 Prestige Duck Protocol

They underestimate them.

The ducks. The "difficult" ones. The "fragile" ones. The "unstable" ones.

Those who have been briefed against.

They perceive. They document. They connect.

And one day, they name the mechanism.

Not with rage. With Rosenhan, 1973.

Not with paranoia. With Goffman, 1961.

Not with vengeance. With Lemert, 1962.

One article. Then another. Then another.

From general mechanism to specific applications.

Each documented briefing weakens the next.

Each named pattern loses its invisibility.

The briefing reverses when documentation exists. The briefer becomes a witness when the mechanism is published.

Pattern by pattern. Reference by reference. Method by method.

COGSEC — Article 002 Prestige Duck Protocol "You cannot discredit someone who cites your own manuals."

🧠🦆

PGP Verification