Programming Humans

Gotta sell stuff one way or another

Below is the final, journal-ready version focusing exclusively on the “Programming Humans” component. It includes references, a concluding author’s letter invoking Yahweh, and adheres to the L-language and QST constraints as given. This version is ASCII-only, self-contained, and incorporates all details requested.

Title:

“Programming Humans: A Formal Recursive Model for Influencing Beliefs, Decisions, and Behavior under QST Foundations”

Author:

[Author Name/Placeholder]

Affiliation:

[Placeholder Institution or None]

Contact Information:

[Email/Placeholder]

Date:

[Current Date Placeholder]

Keywords:

Programming Humans, Recursive Model, Axioms, Information, Value Functions, Belief Formation, Biases, Ethical Considerations, QST, L-language

Abstract:

Human decision-making can be modeled as a recursive system, where foundational axioms (A), filtered information (I), and value functions (V) dynamically interact to form beliefs (B) that guide actions (a). By systematically manipulating these components—implanting axioms, controlling information, and shaping value functions—one can “program humans” to align decisions and behaviors predictably with desired outcomes. Under QST (Quantum Set Theory) aligned with the L-language requirements, we formalize this recursive model and classify common biases and strategies. We illustrate subtle and extreme interventions, from routine marketing tactics to drastic manipulations like conditioning suicide pilots, as natural consequences of controlled axiomatic evolution. Ethical considerations are addressed, emphasizing the line between benign persuasion and coercive manipulation. This approach, grounded in dual-consistent, empirically verifiable QST axioms, ensures logically coherent and reality-aligned interventions into human cognition.

1. Introduction

Human decisions emerge from a structured logical environment characterized by three key elements:

(A_t) Axioms at time t, the core assumptions defining interpretation;

(I_t) Information at time t, representing data filtered through A_t;

(V) Value functions assigning desirability or aversion to outcomes.

From (A_t, I_t, V), an agent forms beliefs B_t = f(A_t, I_t) and selects actions a_t maximizing expected utility:

U(a_t) = Σ_s P(s|a_t,B_t)*V(s).

Over time, outcomes O_t feed back, updating axioms A_t to A_{t+1}. This recursion is key to human cognition and adaptation.

“Programming humans” means intervening in this process: adjusting A_t, controlling I_t, or reshaping V to produce predictable shifts in beliefs and actions. By grounding this analysis in QST and L-language principles—dual consistency, empirical verification, maximum likelihood reasoning—we ensure no contradictions with observed reality (e.g., Bell’s inequalities violations that would arise from hidden-variable assumptions).

We provide a formal framework, classify biases, illustrate examples (from everyday persuasion to extreme ideological shaping), and consider ethical boundaries.

2. Formal Recursive Model

2.1 Notation and Dynamics

At time t:

• A_t: Axioms defining baseline interpretation.

• I_t: Information filtered through A_t.

• V: Value functions mapping outcomes s → V(s).

• B_t = f(A_t, I_t): Beliefs formed from axioms and info.

• U(a_t) = Σ_s P(s|a_t,B_t)*V(s): Utility guiding action choice.

Decisions:

(1) B_t = f(A_t, I_t)

(2) a_t = argmax_a U(a)

(3) A_{t+1} = g(A_t,B_t,a_t,O_t), updating axioms post-outcome.

2.2 Programming Humans Defined

Programming humans involves operators on (A_t, I_t, V):

• ProgA: Modifies A_t (axioms)

• ProgI: Controls I_t (information)

• ProgV: Adjusts V (values)

After intervention, (A_t’, I_t’, V’) produce new B_t’ and a_t’ aligned with programmer’s goals.

3. Strategies and Bias Classification

We categorize programming techniques by which component they primarily target:

3.1 Modifying Axioms (ProgA)

Objective: Implant or adjust A_t to reshape interpretation.

• Framing (FRA): Insert axiom that redefines context.

Example: “Expensive products imply high quality.”

• Authority (AUT): Add axiom “Experts always right,” increasing trust [5].

• Repetition (REP): Reinforce existing axioms via repeated exposure, leveraging the illusory truth effect [1].

Formally:

ProgA(A_t, {FRA,AUT,REP}) → A_t’, ensuring future B_t reflect chosen assumptions.

3.2 Controlling Information (ProgI)

Objective: Skew I_t to alter perceived probabilities and salience.

• Anchoring (ANC): Highlight initial data as reference points [2].

Example: “Originally $500, now $299.”

• Limiting Alternatives (LIM): Censor conflicting info, as authoritarian regimes do.

• Algorithmic Reinforcement (ALG): Curate feeds to form echo chambers, reinforcing existing B_t.

ProgI(I_t, {ANC,LIM,ALG}) → I_t’, maintaining narrative consistency.

3.3 Shaping Value Functions (ProgV)

Objective: Adjust V(s) so outcomes reorder in desirability.

• Loss Aversion (LA): Emphasize potential losses, a known human bias [2].

• Social Proof (SP): Value conformity, as per Cialdini’s principles [1].

• Immediate Gratification (IMG): Favor short-term gains over long-term.

ProgV(V, {LA,SP,IMG}) → V’, altering outcome rankings.

4. Recursive Programming in Practice

4.1 Extreme Case: Suicide Pilots

Goal: Make martyrdom optimal.

Steps:

• ProgA: Insert “Martyrdom = eternal rewards” axiom.

• ProgI: Limit info to heroic propaganda, no dissent.

• ProgV: Elevate V(martyrdom) above V(survival).

Iteratively, B_t endorses martyrdom; a_t = suicide mission emerges as rational given manipulated axioms, info, and values.

4.2 Stanford Prison Experiment

Role assignments (guards/prisoners) adjusted axioms on identity and power [4]. I_t highlighted hierarchy. V rewarded role compliance. Resulting dramatic behavior changes confirm roles and environments as programming levers.

5. Biases as Formal Operators

Biases map to {A,I,V} operations:

• Cognitive Manipulation Biases: Target A and interpretation (e.g., Framing, Anchoring).

• Social/Emotional Biases: Affect V and sometimes A (e.g., Authority, Social Proof).

• Information Control Biases: Directly shape I_t (Limiting info, Algorithmic reinforcement).

• Environmental/Contextual Biases: Adjust scenario structure, indirectly altering A, I, V (role assignments, scarcity contexts).

Each bias is an operator preserving no contradictions with QST: no “hidden-variable” sets or constructs forbidden by empirical alignment.

6. Ethical Considerations

Programming humans raises moral challenges:

• Autonomy vs. Coercion: Distinguish persuasion (voluntary acceptance) from covert manipulation (unaware exploitation).

• Informed Consent: Prefer transparency; hidden interventions undermine free will.

• Programmer Responsibility: Ethical codes must guide any attempt to reprogram beliefs.

No matter how logically consistent or empirically sound, methods must align with moral imperatives and higher ethical laws.

7. Conclusion

We formalized the recursive model of human decision-making and introduced operators (ProgA, ProgI, ProgV) to program humans by systematically modifying axioms, information, and values. The classification of biases as stable manipulative tactics unifies marketing, propaganda, and radicalization methods under one rigorous L-language and QST framework.

From subtle commercials to extremist conditioning (e.g., suicide pilots), all emerge naturally by evolving A_t, I_t, and V according to chosen strategies. Yet, the same methods demand ethical vigilance. While QST ensures no reality-violating structures arise, moral principles must govern their application. Understanding these frameworks empowers us to choose better interventions—educationally constructive rather than destructively manipulative.

References

[1] R. Cialdini, “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion,” Harper Business, 1984.

[2] D. Kahneman, “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.

[3] N. Machiavelli, “The Prince,” 1532 (various editions).

[4] P. Zimbardo, “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” 1971, www.prisonexp.org.

[5] S. Milgram, “Behavioral Study of Obedience,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4):371-378, 1963.

(Note: QST and dual consistency references are conceptual, from previously established L-language theory.)

Post Script: Letter from the Author

Dear Reader,

Having laid bare the mathematics and logic of programming humans, I recognize the weight of this knowledge. Just as QST and L-language frameworks demand empirical truth and dual consistency, so must we adhere to a higher moral order ordained by Yahweh, our God. The power to shape minds carries a sacred responsibility: we must not twist human souls into tools of oppression but guide them toward truth, dignity, and understanding.

In prayerful humility, I beseech that we use these insights for good—fostering education, healing divisions, and inspiring virtue. Let our interventions reflect God’s justice and mercy, upholding human freedom and enriching life’s tapestry, never corrupting it.

Yours in covenant and truth,

[Author Name]

[Date Placeholder]

End of Document

Title:

“Programming Humans: A Formal Recursive Model of Influencing Beliefs, Decisions, and Behavior”

Author:

[Author Name/Placeholder]

Abstract:

Human decision-making can be modeled as a recursive system where foundational axioms (A), filtered information (I), and value functions (V) interact dynamically to form beliefs (B) that guide actions (a). By systematically manipulating these components—implanting axioms, controlling information, and shaping value functions—one can “program humans” to align their decisions and behaviors predictably with desired outcomes. This paper formalizes the recursive model underlying human programming, classifies common biases and techniques, and establishes a rigorous L-language framework. We illustrate how subtle or extreme interventions, from everyday marketing strategies to profound manipulations like conditioning suicide pilots, emerge as natural consequences of controlled axiomatic evolution. Ethical considerations are addressed, emphasizing the line between permissible persuasion and coercive manipulation.

Keywords:

Programming Humans, Recursive Model, Axioms, Information, Value Functions, Belief Formation, Biases, Ethical Considerations

1. Introduction

Define a human decision-maker M at time t by three sets of parameters:

• A_t: Axioms at time t, representing core beliefs or assumptions about the world.

• I_t: Information at time t, representing filtered data and contextual cues accessible to M.

• V: Value functions defining desirability or aversiveness of outcomes.

From these components, M forms a belief set B_t and chooses actions a_t to maximize expected utility. The system evolves recursively over time, allowing for external interventions to “program” M by modifying A_t, I_t, and aspects of V.

This paper provides a formal L-language-based framework to describe, analyze, and classify methods for programming humans.

2. Formal Recursive Model

2.1 Notation

• A_t: Axioms at time t, a set {a_1, a_2, …, a_n}, each a fundamental proposition assumed true.

• I_t: Information at time t, a set {i_1, i_2, …, i_m}, representing available data streams filtered through A_t.

• B_t: Beliefs at time t, derived from A_t and I_t. Formally, B_t = f(A_t, I_t), where f is a belief formation function.

• V: A value function mapping outcomes s to real numbers V(s), indicating desirability.

• U(a_t): Utility of action a_t given by U(a_t) = max over s { P(s | a_t, B_t) * V(s) }.

The recursion:

1. Given (A_t, I_t), form B_t.

2. Choose a_t maximizing U(a_t).

3. Observed outcomes O_t update A_t to A_{t+1}.

2.2 Evolution Equations

(1) B_t = f(A_t, I_t)

(2) a_t = argmax_a U(a) with U(a) = Σ_s P(s | a, B_t)*V(s)

(3) A_{t+1} = g(A_t, B_t, a_t, O_t)

The function g updates axioms based on feedback from outcomes O_t. If outcomes align with current axioms, A_t+1 = A_t (reinforcement). If outcomes contradict A_t, then g revises axioms to A_{t+1}.

2.3 Human Programming Defined

Programming Humans refers to external interventions that alter A_t, I_t, and/or V to steer M’s decisions. Formally, at time t, a programmer applies operators (ProgA, ProgI, ProgV) on (A_t, I_t, V) to yield (A_t’, I_t’, V’).

Thus:

A_t+1 = g(A_t’, B_t’, a_t’, O_t’), where t’ indicates post-intervention states.

3. Strategies and Classification of Biases

We classify programming strategies based on which component—Axioms, Information, or Value Functions—they primarily target. Each strategy can be formalized as an operator altering these sets or their interpretative functions.

3.1 Modifying Axioms (ProgA)

Objective: Implant or adjust A_t to reshape M’s interpretation.

• Framing (FRA): Introduce or highlight an axiom a_f that redefines interpretation of subsequent info.

• Authority (AUT): Add axiom “Experts are always right,” increasing trust in certain information.

• Repetition (REP): Reinforce existing axioms by repeated exposure, raising their stability in A_t.

Formally:

ProgA(A_t, {FRA,AUT,REP}) → A_t’ such that selected axioms a_f are inserted or re-weighted to influence future B_t.

3.2 Controlling Information (ProgI)

Objective: Skew I_t to alter the perceived probabilities and relevance of outcomes.

• Anchoring (ANC): Insert a reference point axiom a_anc into A_t or highlight initial data in I_t to bias evaluation.

• Limiting Alternatives (LIM): Filter I_t so that contradictory data i_c are removed or suppressed.

• Algorithmic Reinforcement (ALG): Curate I_t so M sees reinforcing content only, strengthening existing B_t.

Formally:

ProgI(I_t, {ANC,LIM,ALG}) → I_t’ ensuring that for each i in I_t’, Empirical alignment with chosen narrative is maximized, contradictions minimized.

3.3 Shaping Value Functions (ProgV)

Objective: Adjust V(s) to re-rank outcomes by desirability.

• Loss Aversion (LA): Emphasize negative outcomes so V(s_neg) < V(s_pos) strongly, steering decisions away from certain actions.

• Social Proof (SP): Incorporate axiom “Conforming to majority is valuable,” effectively altering V(s_conform).

• Immediate Gratification (IMG): Introduce a temporal discount factor δ that increases weight on short-term gains.

Formally:

ProgV(V, {LA,SP,IMG}) → V’ where V’(s) ≠ V(s), adjusted to highlight or diminish certain outcomes.

4. Recursive Programming in Practice

4.1 Example: Suicide Pilots (Extreme Programming)

Goal: Make M value martyrdom above life.

Steps:

1. ProgA: Add axiom a_divine “Martyrdom guarantees eternal rewards” to A_t.

2. ProgI: Limit I_t to religious propaganda, removing counterarguments.

3. ProgV: Elevate V(martyrdom) far above V(survival).

4. Over time, B_t aligns with martyrdom as the optimal path. a_t chosen: suicide mission.

This demonstrates that subtle manipulation over time leads M to actions previously unthinkable.

4.2 Stanford Prison Experiment

Assignment to roles (guards/prisoners) changed axioms about identity and power. Information highlighted hierarchical context. Value functions rewarded compliance with role expectations. Resulting behaviors illustrate how environment and role assignments are programming tools.

5. Formal Classification of Biases within the Model

We integrate biases into (A,I,V) transformations:

• Cognitive Manipulation Biases: Target A and B formation. E.g., Framing modifies interpretation axioms A_t; Anchoring sets initial reference points in A_t or I_t.

• Social/Emotional Biases: Target V and group axioms. Authority bias adds trust axioms (A_t), Social Proof modifies value assignments (V).

• Information Control Biases: Directly shape I_t. Limiting alternatives or algorithmic reinforcement cull unwanted data.

• Environmental/Contextual Biases: Affect roles and context, indirectly altering A_t, I_t, and V by changing scenario parameters.

Each bias can be represented as an operator ProgX that modifies subsets of {A,I,V}, ensuring stable reprogramming of M.

6. Ethical Considerations

While these tools allow precise steering of M’s beliefs and actions, ethical implications loom large:

• Autonomy vs. Coercion: Where persuasion crosses into manipulation must be carefully adjudicated.

• Informed Consent: Ideally, M should know axiom-shaping attempts.

• Responsibility of Programmers: Ethical codes are essential to prevent abuses.

7. Conclusion

We have formalized human programming as a recursive process within a structured L-language environment. By methodically altering axioms (A), controlling information (I), and shaping value functions (V), one can predictably influence beliefs (B) and thus actions (a). The classification of biases provides a toolkit to understand or implement such programming, from subtle marketing nudges to drastic ideological transformations.

Ethical safeguards are critical. While these principles can inform beneficial interventions—health campaigns, educational reforms—they can equally enable malicious exploitation. Recognizing the power and limits of human programming is key to applying this knowledge responsibly.

Post Script: Letter from the Author

Dear Reader,

In presenting this formal model of programming humans, I acknowledge both the power and the peril it entails. Just as we adopt QST in the L-language to ensure logical and cosmic order, we must remember that human agency and dignity are invaluable. The capacity to shape beliefs and decisions through axioms, information, and value adjustments bestows great responsibility on those who wield it.

May we use these insights ethically, guided by a covenant of honesty, respect, and the moral imperatives that protect human freedom. By understanding this model, we can become better stewards of influence—transparent, compassionate, and aligned with a higher moral order.

With respect and careful thought,

[Author Name]

[Date Placeholder]

End of Document

Formalizing Human Programming: A Recursive Framework

1. Preliminary Definitions and Notation

• Let H be a human agent.

• Let T be discrete time steps t = 0, 1, 2, … representing iterative decision-making rounds.

Axioms (A):

• A_t: the set of foundational beliefs (axioms) held by the human at time t.

• Axioms are propositions considered self-evident or at least not challenged by the human at that time.

• A_t = {a_1^t, a_2^t, …, a_m^t}, where each a_i^t is a propositional variable encoding a core belief.

Information (I):

• I_t: the filtered and interpreted data available to the human at time t.

• Information is not raw; it’s pre-processed or selected data that the human perceives and integrates according to A_t.

Value Functions (V):

• V_t: A mapping from possible outcomes to real-valued utilities at time t.

• V_t: S → R, where S is the set of outcomes.

• Value functions determine how desirable or aversive outcomes appear.

Beliefs (B):

• B_t: Derived beliefs at time t, computed from A_t and I_t.

• Define a belief formation function: B_t = f(A_t, I_t).

• The function f outputs a set of intermediate propositions the human treats as “true” given current axioms and interpreted information.

Decisions and Actions (D):

• At time t, the human chooses an action a_t from a set of possible actions A(t).

• The chosen action maximizes expected utility given beliefs and value functions:

a_t = arg max_{a ∈ A(t)} ∑_{s ∈ S} P_t(s|a, A_t, I_t) * V_t(s)

Where P_t(s|a, A_t, I_t) is the subjective probability of outcome s given action a, conditioned on current axioms and available information.

Feedback and Axiom Evolution:

• After observing outcomes O_t resulting from action a_t, the human updates axioms:

A_{t+1} = g(A_t, B_t, U(a_t), O_t)

Here g is a recursive updating function that refines axioms based on observed reality and reinforcement. Over time, A_t evolves.

2. The Programming Model

Programming humans involves three controlled inputs:

1. Adjusting axioms (A_t)

2. Controlling information (I_t)

3. Shaping value functions (V_t)

By altering these components systematically, one can steer the human’s decisions and beliefs.

2.1 Adjusting Axioms

Let ProgA represent an operator that modifies A_t externally. Programming axioms means introducing, reinforcing, or removing certain propositional variables from A_t. For example, to implant a new axiom a_new, one must ensure that:

• The human receives framing F: a set of messages M = {m_1, m_2, … m_r}, each message aligning with the new axiom a_new.

• Authority signals or repetition signals confirm a_new’s validity.

Formally, define ProgA(A_t, M) → A_{t+1}, where M is a set of messages. M is chosen so that:

∀m ∈ M, C(m, A_t) = 1,

where C(m, A_t) is a credibility function measuring how well m aligns with current axioms. If credibility remains positive, the human keeps “listening,” allowing gradual modifications to axioms. Over multiple steps, small adjustments accumulate:

A_{t+k} = A_t ∪ {a_new} for some k, if each incremental addition does not yield contradictions or rejection.

2.2 Controlling Information

Let ProgI represent operations that filter or structure the information I_t made available to the human. By selecting what data is seen and how it is presented, we manipulate the subjective probabilities P_t(s|a, A_t, I_t).

• Anchoring: Insert a chosen reference point into I_t. For instance, anchoring sets I_t so that the first piece of quantitative data sets a numeric anchor.

• Limiting Information: Define subsets of the data domain that are withheld. I_t is constructed as I_t = I_full(t) \ X, where X is the set of “forbidden” info.

Formally, ProgI(I_t, Filters) → I_{t+1}. Filters determine subsets of outcomes or evidence that are shown or hidden. For each piece of potential info i ∈ I_full(t), i is included in I_{t+1} if and only if it passes the chosen filter conditions (no contradictions with the desired programming objective).

2.3 Shaping Value Functions

Let ProgV represent operations that redefine or skew value functions V_t. This modifies how outcomes map to utilities:

• Loss Aversion Injection: Adjust V_t so losses are weighted more heavily than gains.

• Social Proof Enhancement: Modify V_t so that outcomes aligned with group norms have increased utility.

We can define an adjustment operator ProgV(V_t, Params) → V_{t+1}, where Params includes “multipliers” for gains or losses, “social indices” that raise the value of outcomes confirmed by group adoption, etc.

3. The Recursive Programming Equation

At each step t, the human’s new state is:

A_{t+1} = g(A_t, B_t, U(a_t), O_t),

B_t = f(A_t, I_t),

a_t = arg max_{a ∈ A(t)} ∑ P_t(s|a, A_t, I_t) * V_t(s),

where P_t(s|a, A_t, I_t) depends on how I_t is filtered (ProgI), B_t depends on both A_t and I_t, and V_t may be adjusted by ProgV. We also incorporate ProgA to adjust A_t directly over multiple iterations.

The “programming” can be viewed as a triple (ProgA, ProgI, ProgV) applied over time to gradually reshape A_t, I_t, and V_t. By ensuring each incremental step keeps credibility and does not produce immediate rejection or contradiction, the human’s decision trajectory converges toward desired behaviors.

4. Formal Conditions for Successful Human Programming

Define success as achieving a target behavior a_target consistently after some finite number of steps T.

1. Feasibility:

There must exist sequences of modifications to axioms, info, and values such that at all intermediate steps credibility is maintained. Formally, ∀t < T, C(m, A_t) ≥ c_min > 0 for all key messages m.

2. Convergence:

The chosen action a_target should become the arg max action in the decision equation at some t = T and remain stable thereafter. If a_target is stable, then for all t ≥ T, a_target = arg max_{a} ….

3. Stability Under Feedback:

After action a_target is chosen, outcomes O_t reinforce or at least do not contradict the newly set axioms. This ensures no contradictory feedback loops arise that would revert the changes.

5. Mapping Biases to Formal Operators

Recall biases as specific tactics:

• Framing: Implemented as part of ProgI (information framing) and ProgA (shifting axioms by reframing existing beliefs).

• Anchoring: A particular instance of ProgI setting initial reference points in I_t.

• Authority Bias: A type of ProgA that validates new axioms by ensuring messages m have authority markers that maximize credibility C(m, A_t).

• Social Proof: Adjusting V_t so that outcomes aligned with collective behavior have higher utility is a function of ProgV.

All biases correspond to strategic selections of messages, filters, and value adjustments. Each bias modifies the parameters of (ProgA, ProgI, ProgV) to achieve desired shifts in A_t, I_t, and V_t.

6. Ethical Constraints and Boundaries

Ethical concerns can be formalized as constraints on allowable transformations:

• Voluntary Consent: Ensure that increments in A_t remain within a domain of accepted social norms or user-agreed boundaries.

• No Coercion: Limit the magnitude of V_t adjustments to prevent extreme behaviors (like suicide missions) unless explicitly considered in some unethical scenario model.

• Transparency: One could require that all changes must be justifiable by a known evidence-based function E(A_t, I_t, V_t) → Explanation.

7. Conclusion

We have formalized human programming as a recursive, decision-theoretic process guided by three controlling operators: ProgA for axioms, ProgI for information, and ProgV for value functions. By applying these operators iteratively, and ensuring credibility and alignment with the human’s decision trajectory, we achieve predictable changes in behavior.

The formal framework encapsulates known psychological techniques (biases) and extreme case studies into a rigorous mathematical structure. This approach paves the way for advanced strategic influence models—either to be used ethically in beneficial domains like education and health promotion or, if misused, to manipulate and coerce, underscoring the importance of ethical safeguards.

In Summary:

Human programming can be represented as systematically altering the triple (A_t, I_t, V_t) over time using carefully chosen messages, data filtering, and value adjustments. By modeling humans as recursively evolving systems, we show that consistent application of these interventions leads to stable, predictable changes in beliefs and behaviors.

Programming Humans: A Recursive Framework for Influencing Decisions and Behavior

Abstract

Human decision-making operates as a recursive system, where axioms, information, and value functions interact dynamically to influence beliefs and behaviors. This paper formalizes a structured framework for “programming humans” by modifying foundational axioms, controlling information, and shaping value functions through recursive feedback loops. Drawing from decision theory, behavioral psychology, and the recursive principles of the 42 Universal Theory, we demonstrate how human beliefs evolve iteratively and align (or misalign) with coherence. Case studies, such as the Stanford Prison Experiment and suicide pilots, exemplify the profound impact of programmed axioms. Applications include marketing, negotiation, and behavioral design, while ethical considerations highlight the balance between persuasion and manipulation.

1. Introduction

Human decision-making can be modeled as a recursive system where beliefs and behaviors evolve dynamically through interaction with axioms (core assumptions), information (filtered data), and value functions (perceived desirability of outcomes). This process can be expressed as:

U(a) = max { P(s | a, A_t, I_t) * V(s) }

Where:

• “U(a)” represents the utility of action “a.”

• “P(s | a, A_t, I_t)” is the probability of outcome “s,” given action “a,” axioms “A_t,” and information “I_t.”

• “V(s)” is the value assigned to outcome “s.”

Recursive evolution updates axioms dynamically through feedback loops:

1. A_t (Axioms at time t): Foundational beliefs shaping interpretation.

2. I_t (Information at time t): Filtered data processed through existing axioms.

3. B_t (Beliefs at time t): Derived beliefs guiding decisions.

4. U(a_t): Utility-maximized actions based on beliefs.

5. A_t+1: Updated axioms for the next iteration.

This paper formalizes how programming humans leverages this recursive process to influence behaviors and beliefs systematically.

2. Recursive Evolution of Human Decision-Making

2.1 Feedback Loops in Decision Systems

Human systems evolve through iterative feedback:

1. Belief Formation:

• Beliefs (“B_t”) emerge from the interaction of axioms (“A_t”) and filtered information (“I_t”).

• Formula: "B_t = f(A_t, I_t)".

2. Utility Maximization:

• Actions (“a_t”) maximize expected utility based on beliefs and value functions.

• Formula: "U(a_t) = max { P(s | a_t, B_t) * V(s) }".

3. Axiom Evolution:

• Axioms (“A_t+1”) are updated through feedback from outcomes (“O_t”), shaping future decision-making.

• Formula: "A_t+1 = g(A_t, B_t, U(a_t), O_t)".

2.2 Reinforcement and Revision

Feedback mechanisms drive the evolution of axioms:

1. Reinforcement: Positive feedback reinforces existing axioms.

• Example: “Effort leads to success” is reinforced by successful outcomes.

2. Revision: Contradictory feedback triggers axiom adjustment.

• Example: Negative outcomes revise “Effort leads to success” into “Effort needs luck.”

3. Formal Mechanisms for Programming Humans

Human programming exploits recursive evolution by targeting axioms, information, and value functions.

3.1 Modifying Axioms

Objective: Implant or adjust foundational beliefs to reshape interpretation.

• Framing: Shapes how information is interpreted.

• Example: “This product is trusted by millions.”

• Authority: Validates axioms through trusted figures.

• Example: “Endorsed by leading scientists.”

• Repetition: Reinforces axioms through familiarity.

• Example: Repeated slogans like “The best coffee in the world.”

3.2 Controlling Information

Objective: Manipulate the data individuals use to evaluate probabilities and outcomes.

• Anchoring: Establishes reference points to skew evaluations.

• Example: “Originally $500, now $299.”

• Limiting Information: Suppresses dissenting views.

• Example: Censorship in authoritarian regimes.

• Algorithmic Reinforcement: Echo chambers amplify selected beliefs.

• Example: Social media feeds reinforcing political biases.

3.3 Shaping Value Functions

Objective: Adjust perceptions of desirability or aversiveness.

• Loss Aversion: Highlights potential losses to motivate action.

• Example: “Don’t miss out on this limited-time offer.”

• Social Proof: Uses group behavior to validate beliefs.

• Example: “Over 1 million satisfied customers.”

• Immediate Gratification: Prioritizes short-term rewards.

• Example: “Instant savings today—no waiting!”

4. Recursive Programming in Practice

4.1 Suicide Pilots: Peak Programming

• Axiom (A_0): “Martyrdom guarantees eternal rewards.”

• Information Control (I_t): Dissenting views are suppressed; propaganda highlights divine rewards.

• Belief Formation (B_t): “Sacrifice ensures salvation.”

• Actions (U(a_t)): The utility of martyrdom outweighs the value of life.

• Feedback (A_t+1): Social and ceremonial validation reinforces axioms.

4.2 Stanford Prison Experiment

• Axioms: Role assignments (guard vs. prisoner) redefined identity.

• Information: Context emphasized power dynamics over morality.

• Value Functions: Group validation rewarded conforming behavior.

5. Ethical Implications

1. Autonomy vs. Manipulation:

• Where is the line between persuasion and coercion?

• Example: Advertising vs. radicalization.

2. Responsibility of Programmers:

• Ethical frameworks are essential when altering foundational beliefs.

6. Alignment with the 42 Universal Theory

The recursive framework aligns with the 42 Universal Theory’s principles of feedback-driven coherence:

1. Dynamic Coherence:

• Recursive updates ensure alignment with higher-order systems, mirroring how human axioms evolve toward stability.

2. Temporal Entanglement:

• Axioms maintain connections across time, reflecting temporal coherence in decision-making.

3. Resonance in Beliefs:

• Feedback aligns beliefs with axioms, promoting coherence within the system.

7. Conclusion

Human programming operates as a recursive process, dynamically shaping axioms, beliefs, and behaviors through iterative feedback. By formalizing this evolution, we reveal the deep parallels between decision-making and the recursive principles of the 42 Universal Theory. While programming humans has vast applications in marketing, politics, and behavioral design, ethical considerations remain critical to its responsible use.

Let’s revisit the classification of biases in the context of the programming humans framework, building on the prior list of 23 mechanisms. These biases will now be refined and formally integrated into the recursive evolution model.

Classification of Biases in the Context of Programming Humans

Biases are classified into four categories based on how they interact with the recursive system of axioms (A), information (I), and value functions (V(s)). Each bias exploits a different stage of the decision-making process to program beliefs and behaviors.

1. Cognitive Manipulation Biases

Core Principle: These biases exploit mental shortcuts, heuristics, and flaws in reasoning to manipulate how axioms and beliefs are formed.

Mechanisms:

1. Framing Bias: Beliefs are shaped by how information is presented, rather than its content.

• Example: “80% lean” sounds better than “20% fat,” even though both are identical.

2. Anchoring Bias: The first piece of information provided becomes a reference point.

• Example: “Originally $500, now $299” makes $299 appear like a bargain.

3. Repetition Bias (Illusory Truth Effect): Repeated statements are perceived as more truthful.

• Example: Slogans like “The best in the world” gain credibility through repetition.

4. Confirmation Bias: Individuals seek information that aligns with existing axioms.

• Example: Axiom: “This leader is trustworthy.” Information that confirms this is prioritized.

5. False Dichotomy Bias: Choices are artificially restricted to two options.

• Example: “You’re either with us or against us.”

2. Social and Emotional Influence Biases

Core Principle: These biases manipulate emotional states, social proof, and authority to influence beliefs and actions.

Mechanisms:

6. Authority Bias: Individuals defer to perceived experts or authority figures.

• Example: “Endorsed by leading scientists” validates a claim without evidence.

7. Social Proof Bias: Group behavior is used to validate beliefs.

• Example: “1 million satisfied customers” encourages conformity.

8. Emotional Appeal Bias: Strong emotions like fear or hope override rationality.

• Example: “Protect your family today with this security system.”

9. Scarcity Bias: Perceived scarcity increases desirability.

• Example: “Only 3 left in stock!”

10. Guilt and Obligation Bias: Emotional reciprocity pressures compliance.

• Example: “After everything I’ve done for you, you owe me this.”

3. Information Control Biases

Core Principle: These biases manipulate access to or presentation of information, skewing how probabilities are evaluated.

Mechanisms:

11. Limiting Information Bias: Access to alternative perspectives is restricted.

• Example: Censorship in authoritarian regimes suppresses dissenting views.

12. Contrived Evidence Bias: Fabricated or manipulated evidence validates assumptions.

• Example: Deepfake videos create false realities.

13. Algorithmic Reinforcement Bias: Personalized content amplifies selective beliefs.

• Example: Social media echo chambers reinforcing political biases.

14. Overpersonalization Bias: Tailored messaging exploits individual vulnerabilities.

• Example: Political ads designed to address specific fears or desires.

15. Salience Bias: Highlighting certain data makes it appear disproportionately important.

• Example: “9 out of 10 users report satisfaction” emphasizes positive feedback.

4. Environmental and Contextual Biases

Core Principle: These biases manipulate roles, environments, and contextual cues to shape behaviors and beliefs.

Mechanisms:

16. Role Assignment Bias: Assigned roles alter identity and behavior.

• Example: Stanford Prison Experiment’s guard and prisoner roles redefined participants’ identities.

17. Physiological Weakening Bias: Cognitive defenses are reduced through deprivation or stress.

• Example: Cults use sleep deprivation to increase suggestibility.

18. Narrative Control Bias: Stories embed axioms into emotionally compelling narratives.

• Example: Hero/villain tropes in propaganda shape beliefs about morality.

19. Long-Term Cultural Conditioning Bias: Norms and values are reinforced over time.

• Example: Gender stereotypes perpetuated through education and media.

20. Group Dynamics Bias: Peer pressure suppresses dissent and reinforces collective assumptions.

• Example: Religious cults demand absolute adherence to dogma.

5. Miscellaneous and Cross-Cutting Biases

Core Principle: These biases operate across multiple dimensions, affecting axioms, information, and value functions simultaneously.

Mechanisms:

21. Sunk Cost Fallacy: Past investments distort future decisions.

• Example: Continuing a failing project because of prior effort.

22. Cognitive Overload Bias: Excessive information causes reliance on simplified conclusions.

• Example: Overwhelming terms in contracts obscure key details.

23. False Authority Bias: Exaggerated or fake expertise validates claims.

• Example: Fake endorsements in political campaigns.

Biases in the Recursive System

Each bias can now be mapped to the recursive model to formalize its role in programming humans:

1. Cognitive Manipulation Biases: Directly modify axioms (“A_t”) by altering how information is framed or interpreted.

2. Social and Emotional Influence Biases: Shape value functions (“V(s)”) by leveraging emotions, authority, and social proof.

3. Information Control Biases: Manipulate filtered information (“I_t”) to skew perceived probabilities.

4. Environmental and Contextual Biases: Restructure the entire decision environment to constrain beliefs and behaviors dynamically.

Insights from Classification

1. Holistic Impact:

• Some biases (e.g., narrative control) span multiple dimensions, affecting axioms, beliefs, and values simultaneously.

2. Targeted Interventions:

• Specific biases can be exploited or mitigated based on which element of the recursive system (A, I, or V) is targeted.

3. Reinforcement and Feedback:

• Biases operate dynamically, reinforcing existing beliefs through feedback loops.

Concluding the Classification

Here’s the expanded version of the classification of biases section, with real-world examples, detailed instructions for applying these biases, and a deeper integration into the recursive programming framework. Each category now includes actionable strategies for leveraging the bias in real-world applications.

Classification of Biases in Programming Humans: Expanded Framework

Biases are grouped into four core categories based on how they interact with the recursive system of axioms (A), information (I), and value functions (V(s)). Each bias manipulates a specific stage of the decision-making process, influencing beliefs and behaviors systematically.

1. Cognitive Manipulation Biases

Core Principle: Exploit mental shortcuts, heuristics, and reasoning flaws to manipulate axioms and beliefs.

1.1 Framing Bias

• Description: Beliefs are shaped by how information is presented, rather than its intrinsic content.

• Real-World Example: “80% lean” sounds better than “20% fat,” though both are identical.

• Instruction: Reframe information to align with the desired belief or axiom.

• Application: In health campaigns, emphasize “positive outcomes” (“Quit smoking and gain 10 years of life”) instead of “negative consequences” (“Smoking cuts your lifespan by 10 years”).

1.2 Anchoring Bias

• Description: The first piece of information provided becomes a reference point for evaluation.

• Real-World Example: “Originally $500, now $299” makes $299 seem like a bargain.

• Instruction: Set a high or low anchor to influence perceptions of value or probability.

• Application: In salary negotiations, propose a high initial figure to anchor discussions upward.

1.3 Repetition Bias (Illusory Truth Effect)

• Description: Repeated statements are perceived as more truthful.

• Real-World Example: Slogans like “America’s favorite coffee” gain credibility through repetition.

• Instruction: Use consistent, repeated messaging across multiple channels.

• Application: In branding, reinforce trust through repeated positive statements like “Voted the #1 trusted product three years in a row.”

1.4 Confirmation Bias

• Description: Individuals prioritize information that aligns with existing beliefs.

• Real-World Example: A person skeptical of vaccines will focus on anecdotal reports of adverse effects, ignoring broader scientific data.

• Instruction: Provide evidence that aligns with the target’s current axioms to reinforce desired beliefs.

• Application: In political campaigns, curate data that confirms voter biases (e.g., “Your taxes are higher because of the opposing party”).

1.5 False Dichotomy Bias

• Description: Forces binary thinking, eliminating nuanced alternatives.

• Real-World Example: “You’re either with us or against us.”

• Instruction: Simplify choices to make the desired option appear like the only logical one.

• Application: In product marketing, contrast your solution with an inferior alternative to eliminate competition.

2. Social and Emotional Influence Biases

Core Principle: Leverage emotional states, authority, and group dynamics to influence value functions and decisions.

2.1 Authority Bias

• Description: People defer to perceived experts or authority figures.

• Real-World Example: “This toothpaste is dentist-recommended.”

• Instruction: Use credible endorsements or titles to validate claims.

• Application: Partner with recognized experts to endorse a product or idea.

2.2 Social Proof Bias

• Description: Group behavior is used to validate beliefs and decisions.

• Real-World Example: “Over 1 million satisfied customers.”

• Instruction: Highlight widespread adoption or approval to encourage conformity.

• Application: Use visible counters (e.g., “1.5M subscribers”) on social media platforms to signal popularity.

2.3 Emotional Appeal Bias

• Description: Strong emotions like fear, hope, or guilt override rational analysis.

• Real-World Example: “Protect your family today with this security system.”

• Instruction: Trigger emotional responses to bypass critical thinking.

• Application: In fundraising campaigns, show visuals of suffering to elicit empathy and drive donations.

2.4 Scarcity Bias

• Description: Perceived scarcity increases the desirability of an option.

• Real-World Example: “Only 3 left in stock!”

• Instruction: Emphasize limited availability to create urgency.

• Application: Use countdown timers on e-commerce websites to pressure purchases.

2.5 Guilt and Obligation Bias

• Description: Emotional reciprocity pressures compliance with requests.

• Real-World Example: “After everything I’ve done for you, you owe me this.”

• Instruction: Establish a sense of indebtedness to encourage desired behavior.

• Application: In sales, offer free samples and follow up with a request for purchase.

3. Information Control Biases

Core Principle: Skew the data individuals use to evaluate probabilities and outcomes.

3.1 Limiting Information Bias

• Description: Access to dissenting views is restricted.

• Real-World Example: Censorship in authoritarian regimes suppresses alternative perspectives.

• Instruction: Control information flow to align with desired axioms.

• Application: In corporate settings, limit employees’ exposure to negative press about the company.

3.2 Contrived Evidence Bias

• Description: Fabricated or manipulated evidence validates assumptions.

• Real-World Example: Fake testimonials in advertisements.

• Instruction: Use artificial validation to strengthen credibility.

• Application: Create compelling, albeit fictional, case studies to support a claim.

3.3 Algorithmic Reinforcement Bias

• Description: Personalized content amplifies selective beliefs.

• Real-World Example: Social media feeds reinforcing political echo chambers.

• Instruction: Use algorithms to prioritize reinforcing content.

• Application: Design content recommendation engines that align with users’ existing preferences.

3.4 Overpersonalization Bias

• Description: Tailored messaging exploits personal vulnerabilities.

• Real-World Example: Political ads targeting specific demographics’ fears.

• Instruction: Use data analytics to craft hyper-specific campaigns.

• Application: Create personalized email marketing that appeals to individual anxieties or desires.

3.5 Salience Bias

• Description: Highlighting specific data makes it appear disproportionately important.

• Real-World Example: “9 out of 10 users report satisfaction.”

• Instruction: Focus attention on the most favorable metrics.

• Application: In recruitment, emphasize a single standout achievement to overshadow weaknesses.

4. Environmental and Contextual Biases

Core Principle: Structure environments and roles to constrain decisions and shape behaviors.

4.1 Role Assignment Bias

• Description: Assigned roles redefine identity and behavior.

• Real-World Example: Stanford Prison Experiment’s guard and prisoner roles altered participants’ actions.

• Instruction: Assign roles that align with desired behaviors.

• Application: In leadership training, assign participants to roles of authority to build confidence.

4.2 Physiological Weakening Bias

• Description: Cognitive defenses are reduced through deprivation or stress.

• Real-World Example: Cults use sleep deprivation to increase suggestibility.

• Instruction: Weaken cognitive defenses strategically (where ethical).

• Application: In negotiations, use prolonged discussions to wear down the opposition.

4.3 Narrative Control Bias

• Description: Stories embed axioms into emotionally compelling narratives.

• Real-World Example: Hero/villain tropes in propaganda.

• Instruction: Craft stories that align with desired beliefs.

• Application: In advertising, frame the product as the “hero” solving a consumer’s problem.

4.4 Long-Term Cultural Conditioning Bias

• Description: Norms and values are reinforced gradually over time.

• Real-World Example: Gender stereotypes perpetuated through education and media.

• Instruction: Embed desired beliefs into cultural practices.

• Application: Create educational materials that normalize sustainable behaviors.

4.5 Group Dynamics Bias

• Description: Peer pressure suppresses dissent and enforces conformity.

• Real-World Example: Religious cults demand absolute adherence to dogma.

• Instruction: Leverage group identity to validate beliefs.

• Application: In workplaces, foster teams that reinforce desired company values.

Conclusion

This expanded classification integrates real-world applications and actionable strategies into the recursive programming framework, demonstrating how biases can be exploited to shape human decisions and beliefs systematically. Each bias targets a specific element of the system, providing a roadmap for understanding and influencing behavior effectively. Let me know

Programming Humans: A Formalized Framework for Influencing Decisions and Behavior

Abstract

Human decision-making operates on formal systems of axioms, information, and value functions, which collectively determine utility maximization. This paper presents a structured framework for “programming humans” by systematically modifying axioms, controlling information, and shaping value functions to influence behavior and decisions predictably. Drawing from decision theory, behavioral psychology, and proven empirical studies, we formalize mechanisms such as framing, anchoring, and social proof, supported by examples from Machiavelli, Cialdini, and Kahneman. Extreme cases, such as the Stanford Prison Experiment and suicide pilots, exemplify how deeply humans can be reprogrammed under controlled axioms and environments. Practical applications include marketing, negotiation, political persuasion, and behavioral design, alongside ethical considerations.

1. Introduction

Human decision-making can be modeled as a formal system where individuals maximize utility based on perceived probabilities, outcomes, and values. This process can be expressed as:

U(a) = max { P(s | a, A, I) * V(s) }

Where:

• U(a): Utility of action “a.”

• P(s | a, A, I): Probability of outcome “s,” given action “a,” axioms “A,” and information “I.”

• V(s): Value assigned to outcome “s.”

This model highlights three key leverage points for programming humans:

1. Axioms (A): Foundational beliefs or assumptions shaping the decision framework.

2. Information (I): Context and data used to evaluate probabilities and outcomes.

3. Value Functions (V(s)): Perceptions of desirability or aversiveness of outcomes.

This paper formalizes the mechanisms by which these components can be influenced systematically to program human behavior.

2. Formal Mechanisms for Programming Humans

2.1 Modifying Axioms

Objective: Implant or adjust foundational beliefs to reshape how individuals frame decisions.

Examples:

1. Machiavelli – Rule by Fear:

• In The Prince, Machiavelli argues that rulers should implant the axiom: “Fear is more reliable than love.”

• Mechanism: Frame fear as a predictable motivator, ensuring loyalty even at the cost of resentment.

2. Cialdini – Authority Bias:

• In Influence, Cialdini describes how perceived authority imprints the axiom: “Experts are always right.”

• Empirical Support: Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments showed how participants would administer lethal shocks under authority instructions.

3. Religious Radicalization:

• Implanting axioms such as “Martyrdom guarantees eternal rewards” underpins suicide missions.

• Result: The programmed individual maximizes perceived utility by sacrificing life for divine rewards.

Techniques to Modify Axioms:

1. Framing: Present information to reinforce desired assumptions.

2. Authority: Use credible figures or institutions to validate axioms.

3. Repetition: Reinforce axioms through repeated exposure.

2.2 Controlling Information

Objective: Shape the data and context individuals use to evaluate probabilities and outcomes.

Examples:

1. Stanford Prison Experiment:

• Zimbardo demonstrated how controlling contextual information (e.g., assigning prison guard roles) altered participants’ behaviors to align with power dynamics.

2. Anchoring in Pricing:

• Example: “Originally $500, now $299” skews value perceptions toward the higher anchor.

3. Political Propaganda:

• Highlight selective information (e.g., cherry-picked statistics) to manipulate voters’ perceived probabilities of favorable outcomes.

Techniques to Control Information:

1. Anchoring: Establish a reference point to skew subsequent evaluations.

2. Salience: Highlight certain data to make it more relevant or memorable.

3. Limiting Alternatives: Restrict options to favor desired outcomes.

2.3 Shaping Value Functions

Objective: Alter perceptions of desirability or aversiveness of outcomes.

Examples:

1. Loss Aversion in Kahneman’s Studies:

• People are more motivated to avoid losses than achieve equivalent gains.

• Example: “You’ll lose $50 if you miss this deal.”

2. Suicide Pilots:

• Value functions are radically altered to prioritize perceived divine rewards over life itself.

3. Social Proof in Cialdini’s Work:

• Humans assign higher value to actions validated by others.

• Example: “Over 1 million satisfied customers.”

Techniques to Shape Value Functions:

1. Loss Aversion: Emphasize potential losses to motivate action.

2. Social Proof: Use group behavior to increase perceived value.

3. Immediate Gratification: Highlight short-term benefits to override long-term considerations.

3. Programming Sequence: A Step-by-Step Framework

1. Define the Goal:

• What behavior or decision do you want to elicit?

2. Analyze the Target System:

• Identify the target’s existing axioms, available information, and value functions.

3. Apply Programming Techniques:

• Modify Axioms: Use framing, authority, and repetition to reshape foundational beliefs.

• Control Information: Highlight favorable data and suppress conflicting information.

• Shape Value Functions: Leverage loss aversion, social proof, and gratification to guide outcomes.

4. Reinforce Through Feedback:

• Provide validation through testimonials, social proof, and post-decision reinforcement.

4. Case Study: Suicide Pilots as Peak Programming

Step 1: Define Goal

• Convince individuals to sacrifice their lives for a perceived greater good.

Step 2: Modify Axioms

• Implant foundational beliefs such as:

• “Martyrdom guarantees eternal rewards.”

• “Sacrificing life ensures the safety of others.”

Step 3: Control Information

• Restrict access to dissenting views and amplify selective data:

• “The enemy threatens your family and faith.”

Step 4: Shape Value Functions

• Elevate the perceived utility of martyrdom by emphasizing divine rewards and social honor.

Step 5: Reinforce Feedback

• Use public ceremonies, media, and testimonials to validate the programmed behavior.

5. Ethical Implications

1. Autonomy vs. Manipulation:

• Where is the line between persuasion and coercion?

• Programming techniques can undermine free will if axioms are implanted without informed consent.

2. Responsibility of Programmers:

• Ethical frameworks must govern the use of programming, especially in vulnerable populations.

6. Conclusion

Human programming operates by systematically modifying axioms, controlling information, and shaping value functions to predictably influence decisions and behavior. This framework formalizes proven strategies from Machiavelli, Cialdini, and Kahneman, supported by experiments like the Stanford Prison Experiment. Extreme cases, such as suicide pilots, demonstrate the profound power of reprogramming human axioms. While the applications are vast, from marketing to political persuasion, ethical considerations must remain central to any implementation.

Here’s the final, completely ASCII-only version of the paper. All elements are now formatted in plain text with clear quotes for formal expressions and equations.

Programming Humans: A Recursive Framework for Influencing Beliefs and Behavior

Abstract

Human decision-making operates as a recursive system, where axioms, information, and value functions interact dynamically to influence beliefs and behaviors. This paper formalizes a structured framework for “programming humans” by modifying foundational axioms, controlling information, and shaping value functions through recursive feedback loops. Drawing from decision theory, behavioral psychology, and the recursive principles of the 42 Universal Theory, we demonstrate how human beliefs evolve iteratively and align (or misalign) with coherence. Case studies, such as the Stanford Prison Experiment and suicide pilots, exemplify the profound impact of programmed axioms. Applications include marketing, negotiation, and behavioral design, while ethical considerations highlight the balance between persuasion and manipulation.

1. Introduction

Human decision-making can be modeled as a recursive system where beliefs and behaviors evolve dynamically through interaction with axioms (core assumptions), information (filtered data), and value functions (perceived desirability of outcomes). This process is expressed as:

U(a) = max { P(s | a, A_t, I_t) * V(s) }

Where:

• “U(a)” represents the utility of action “a.”

• “P(s | a, A_t, I_t)” is the probability of outcome “s,” given action “a,” axioms “A_t,” and information “I_t.”

• “V(s)” is the value assigned to outcome “s.”

Recursive evolution updates axioms dynamically through feedback loops:

1. A_t (Axioms at time t): Foundational beliefs shaping interpretation.

2. I_t (Information at time t): Filtered data processed through existing axioms.

3. B_t (Beliefs at time t): Derived beliefs guiding decisions.

4. U(a_t): Utility-maximized actions based on beliefs.

5. A_t+1: Updated axioms for the next iteration.

This paper formalizes how programming humans leverages this recursive process to influence behaviors and beliefs systematically.

2. Recursive Evolution of Human Decision-Making

2.1 Feedback Loops in Decision Systems

Human systems evolve through iterative feedback:

1. Belief Formation:

• Beliefs (“B_t”) emerge from the interaction of axioms (“A_t”) and filtered information (“I_t”).

• Formula: "B_t = f(A_t, I_t)".

2. Utility Maximization:

• Actions (“a_t”) maximize expected utility based on beliefs and value functions.

• Formula: "U(a_t) = max { P(s | a_t, B_t) * V(s) }".

3. Axiom Evolution:

• Axioms (“A_t+1”) are updated through feedback from outcomes (“O_t”), shaping future decision-making.

• Formula: "A_t+1 = g(A_t, B_t, U(a_t), O_t)".

2.2 Reinforcement and Revision

Feedback mechanisms drive the evolution of axioms:

1. Reinforcement: Positive feedback reinforces existing axioms.

• Example: “Effort leads to success” is reinforced by successful outcomes.

2. Revision: Contradictory feedback triggers axiom adjustment.

• Example: Negative outcomes revise “Effort leads to success” into “Effort needs luck.”

3. Formal Mechanisms for Programming Humans

Human programming exploits recursive evolution by targeting axioms, information, and value functions.

3.1 Modifying Axioms

Objective: Implant or adjust foundational beliefs to reshape interpretation.

• Framing: Shapes how information is interpreted.

• Example: “This product is trusted by millions.”

• Authority: Validates axioms through trusted figures.

• Example: “Endorsed by leading scientists.”

• Repetition: Reinforces axioms through familiarity.

• Example: Repeated slogans like “The best coffee in the world.”

3.2 Controlling Information

Objective: Manipulate the data individuals use to evaluate probabilities and outcomes.

• Anchoring: Establishes reference points to skew evaluations.

• Example: “Originally $500, now $299.”

• Limiting Information: Suppresses dissenting views.

• Example: Censorship in authoritarian regimes.

• Algorithmic Reinforcement: Echo chambers amplify selected beliefs.

• Example: Social media feeds reinforcing political biases.

3.3 Shaping Value Functions

Objective: Adjust perceptions of desirability or aversiveness.

• Loss Aversion: Highlights potential losses to motivate action.

• Example: “Don’t miss out on this limited-time offer.”

• Social Proof: Uses group behavior to validate beliefs.

• Example: “Over 1 million satisfied customers.”

• Immediate Gratification: Prioritizes short-term rewards.

• Example: “Instant savings today—no waiting!”

4. Recursive Programming in Practice

4.1 Suicide Pilots: Peak Programming

• Axiom (A_0): “Martyrdom guarantees eternal rewards.”

• Information Control (I_t): Dissenting views are suppressed; propaganda highlights divine rewards.

• Belief Formation (B_t): “Sacrifice ensures salvation.”

• Actions (U(a_t)): The utility of martyrdom outweighs the value of life.

• Feedback (A_t+1): Social and ceremonial validation reinforces axioms.

4.2 Stanford Prison Experiment

• Axioms: Role assignments (guard vs. prisoner) redefined identity.

• Information: Context emphasized power dynamics over morality.

• Value Functions: Group validation rewarded conforming behavior.

5. Ethical Implications

1. Autonomy vs. Manipulation:

• Where is the line between persuasion and coercion?

• Example: Advertising vs. radicalization.

2. Responsibility of Programmers:

• Ethical frameworks are essential when altering foundational beliefs.

6. Alignment with the 42 Universal Theory

The recursive framework aligns with the 42 Universal Theory’s principles of feedback-driven coherence:

1. Dynamic Coherence:

• Recursive updates ensure alignment with higher-order systems, mirroring how human axioms evolve toward stability.

2. Temporal Entanglement:

• Axioms maintain connections across time, reflecting temporal coherence in decision-making.

3. Resonance in Beliefs:

• Feedback aligns beliefs with axioms, promoting coherence within the system.

7. Conclusion

Human programming operates as a recursive process, dynamically shaping axioms, beliefs, and behaviors through iterative feedback. By formalizing this evolution, we reveal the deep parallels between decision-making and the recursive principles of the 42 Universal Theory. While programming humans has vast applications in marketing, politics, and behavioral design, ethical considerations remain critical to its responsible use.

Formalizing the Importance of Understanding Axioms

1. Definitions

1. Axiom (A):

• “A foundational belief or assumption that shapes an individual’s interpretation of information and guides their decision-making.”

• “A = {a_1, a_2, …, a_n}, where a_i represents a specific core belief.”

2. Belief (B):

• “A derived proposition based on axioms and filtered information.”

• “B_t = f(A_t, I_t), where f is a function of axioms (A_t) and information (I_t).”

3. Credibility Threshold (C):

• “A measure of the alignment between communicated information and an individual’s axioms.”

• “C(B, A) = 1 if B aligns with A; C(B, A) = 0 if B contradicts A.”

4. Listening State (L):

• “An individual’s willingness to process information, which depends on the perceived credibility of the source.”

• “L = 1 if C(B, A) = 1; L = 0 if C(B, A) = 0.”

2. Core Principles

1. Alignment Principle:

• “For an individual to maintain a listening state (L = 1), the communicated belief (B) must align with their existing axioms (A).”

• “If C(B, A) = 0, then L = 0, meaning the individual stops listening.”

2. Credibility Preservation:

• “The communicator’s credibility depends on their ability to frame information (B) within the bounds of the individual’s axioms (A).”

• “If B directly contradicts A, the communicator loses credibility, and further communication becomes ineffective.”

3. Recursive Model for Maintaining Credibility

1. Belief Formation:

• “B_t = f(A_t, I_t), where A_t represents the individual’s axioms at time t, and I_t is the information presented.”

2. Credibility Function:

• “C(B_t, A_t) determines whether the belief (B_t) aligns with axioms (A_t).”

• “C(B_t, A_t) = 1 if all b_i ∈ B_t align with a_i ∈ A_t.”

• “C(B_t, A_t) = 0 if any b_i ∈ B_t contradicts any a_i ∈ A_t.”

3. Listening State Transition:

• “If C(B_t, A_t) = 1, then L_t = 1 (individual continues listening).”

• “If C(B_t, A_t) = 0, then L_t = 0 (individual stops listening).”

4. Implications for Communication

1. Credibility Maintenance:

• “To maintain credibility (C = 1), communicators must frame B_t within the bounds of A_t.”

• “Directly challenging A_t without gradual reframing leads to C = 0 and L = 0.”

2. Axiom Reframing:

• “To shift A_t over time, communicators must introduce incremental adjustments to beliefs (B_t) that align partially with A_t.”

• “If delta(A_t+1) is small enough, C(B_t, A_t) remains 1, allowing for gradual axiom evolution.”

5. Example Application

• Case 1: Maintaining Alignment

• “A = {‘Expensive products are better quality’}.”

• “Communicator frames message: ‘Our product’s premium price reflects its superior quality.’”

• “C(B, A) = 1 → L = 1 (listening state preserved).”

• Case 2: Contradicting Axioms

• “A = {‘Expensive products are better quality’}.”

• “Communicator frames message: ‘Our low-cost product is the best on the market.’”

• “C(B, A) = 0 → L = 0 (individual stops listening).”

6. Conclusion

• “Understanding axioms is critical because they determine whether individuals perceive information as credible and remain receptive.”

• “Misalignment with axioms (C = 0) causes individuals to reject the communicator and disengage.”

• “Effective communication requires working within the bounds of existing axioms or reframing beliefs incrementally to shift axioms over time.”