While you’re not the first to raise this general point (there’s a whole organization called “Let Grow” in the US dedicated to the overall point), the Way you made the more specific point about independent peer cultures, and what it means for childhood in western physical and digital spaces was terrific. I have sent this to a bunch of people because it’s so fascinating. even if this is unpublished in the sense that you haven’t done rigorous research about it, it might very well be one of those things where the simplest explanation is often the truest. Thank you for writing this and I’m now a subscriber and I eagerly await other things you write.
As the father of 3 kids, I think you are probably right about kids wanting their own space. But how can anyone realistically create a space better than Roblox without succumbing to monetization that taints the experience? It seems that the real problem here is one of social incentives. In pre-industrial societies like the one studied in the book “The Old Ways” for instance, capitalism simply didn’t exist. It isn’t that pre-capitalist societies were somehow utopian and simpler, but they had different kinds of failure modes than ours.
As a techie, I know first hand how expensive it is to build, monitor, and maintain a massive open world game. The moderation alone would cost millions per year and systems like Wikipedia’s editor model with its complex system of checks and balances has the wrong incentives and time to resolution. A griefer spraying pornography needs to be stopped now, not after a week of careful deliberation.
I’m happy to pay outright for games that have no ads or in app monetization, but there aren’t many titles to choose from because studios can make so much more per user by building virtual casinos and then those titles outcompete the less profitable competitors.
I'm not sure -- I would think that there are three main obstacles. One is monetization (i.e. keeping the digital space stable without requiring it to function as a casino); a second is age verification; and a third is content moderation. I'm still thinking all of this through, so please consider these very preliminary solutions
Re(1), I think paid subscriptions and perhaps government subsidy could easily offset the financial issues.
Re (2), it doesn't seem impossible to imagine facial recognition technology that would prevent adults from entering the space. Roblox is actually implementing something similar, though I haven't looked into how well it works.
Re (3): this is the thorniest problem. But I'm tempted to think that, if we assume adults actually can't make it into the space (big if, ofc), then we're better off providing in-game mechanisms that allow kids to deal with malfeasant behavior from other kids on their own. Kids in the long-term would probably be better off if adults didn't constantly step in to resolve their conflicts for them. But again, this laissez faire approach is only viable if adults can actually be kept off the platform.
I do also want to think more about physical solutions to this problem. Clearly, it's possible to have non-forager societies where kids preserve a healthy degree of independence -- we had something like it in the USA just a few decades ago, and in certain countries (i.e. Finland) it seems to hav been maintained.
I think one alternative online solution is VR Chat. It's been a while since I've tried it, but from what I remember it was huge collection of virtual spaces build by a large community of creators. There is very little monetization and a lot of freedom to create your own avatar and virtual spaces (if you have the technical skills, otherwise there are catalogues of user created content).
When I played it, it truly felt like the internet of the early 2000s. I believe the company making it has added a lot of safety features due to some complaints of abuse, but compared to something like Meta's attempt of a VR world, VR Chat feels like a non commercial, non-sanitized-for-advertisers type of experience.
One of the best things about VR Chat is finding a community you can connect with. I joined a weekly live theatre performance group where a group of various ages would take part in an interactive performance guided by a professional actor. There are groups to learn languages, sharing art, playing music live, roleplaying your favorite fictional world, exploring strange architecture, solving puzzles, playing games, watching movies, etc. You would likely need to do a bit of initial supervision so your kids don't end up stumbing into a VR Chat nightclub full of drunk adults, but I believe there are age verification and parental settings you can add. https://help.vrchat.com/hc/en-us/articles/33301610887443-Safety-Resources-For-Parents
I hope your kids can find that special space for them to be kids and explore their own creativity in a safe, yet unsupervised way. Kids should be able to be in spaces that allow them to form lifelong memories propelled by play and curiosity. If the friction to do it offline is too high, I hope that VR Chat or some other platform can help out with that.
Edit - I should also note that VR Chat doesn't require a headset. It works on desktop PCs with a monitor too. I also think that VR Chat might be a good way to get any of your kids that are interested in game development and 3D modeling to have an outlet for it if they want to make their own worlds and original characters.
Refreshing to read a more nuanced take on the subject.
Have you read ‘It’s complicated’ by dana boyd? Very similar argument, and whilst rooted in the era of MySpace, the insights and lessons are still extremely relevant.
Also, I think parents behaviour has also changed (less time outdoors, more screen time, perhaps longer working hours in some instances) and this has meant kids behaviours are partly mirroring parents, but also shaped by the options their parents create.
Many thanks! I haven't read 'it's complicated', but it looks relevant -- I'll check it out. I appreciate the recommendation.
Definitely agree that parent behavior has changed as well. While I think anthropologists overstate extent to which childhood centers on mimicry, it's still a major influence. So to your point, if kids see adults sitting at home on their phones all day, they'll absolutely treat that as the norm.
I'm thinking that the kids in the most traditional societies who roam the forest freely they probably often get exposed to disturbing content. E.g., the girls who peek into houses to see women giving birth; they also see people having sex (correct me if I'm wrong, but I've come to believe this is very common, and that the protection of kids, especially girls, from all sex knowledge is an invention of more complicated societies). They'll also witness their group members die in plain sight, having fallen into a river, down a cliff, or suchlike.
Another possible theory for "Why do independent peer cultures emerge so reliably in our species?":
Adults are largely "in control"/"in charge" (vs. kids) in a communal setting. The children simply cannot learn the experience of being in control without being independent.
Thank you for this thought-provoking text! One thing I'd like to highlight is that figure 13 about UNICEF childhood wellbeing rankings and mobility uses the UNICEF Innocenti report from 2013. In this year's Innocenti report, Finland is 17th where Portugal, for example, is fourth. The data in the former is from 2010 and in the latter from 2020 – has mobility changed significantly in these countries in ten years? In my experience, no.
Oh, interesting — thanks for pointing that out. I suspect you’re right that mobility hasn’t changed significantly, but it is notable that 2013 is right around when social media/smartphone use among kids really started to explode. Ofc, I’m arguing here that it isn’t the central driver for this change, but it certainly exacerbates the problem. So if there were major changes, perhaps it has something to do with the differing degrees to which smartphones were incorporated into the lives of children in these countries. (Though one would need to explain why that would affect mobility scores in particular, which are more determined by parental attitudes and features of the environment)
"Do we want to tear down the skyscrapers and unpave the roads? Should we demand a forest for our children? The truth is that we’re not going back"
You've included the graph from 2013 Unicef about children's mobility and happiness. The answer is there ; You can demand the same level of urbanism. Walk-able cities. You can demand to join the Netherlands, still #1 ahead of Finland in children's happiness - because they've designed urban places that can function without cars.
I don't like that this article devolves into solutioning this problem with virtual spaces.
There is nothing that the Netherlands has done that U.S. cities can't do. They weren't built for cars any more than the Netherlands. Our cities were bulldozed for cars. And it can reverse course like Amsterdam did back in the eighties. The only thing missing for this to happen is public support to generate political will.
That means, in YOUR neighborhood, vocal support in favor of taking space away from cars and giving it back to the people. Gradually. There needs to be voices to counteract the people who will complain if you take away any parking spaces, any lanes, any space on the road. Vocal support for the removal of a turning lane in favor of a separated bike path, and support for turning two way streets into one-way streets in residential neighborhoods so that proper sidewalks can be built. Vocal support for lower speed limits.
Vocal support for smaller apartment complexes in single-family home neighborhoods, the removal of mandatory setback requirements, mandatory parking spaces, ... because corner-stores, public transit only works if there are enough people around to keep them going.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply! I also don't feel satisfied by my conclusion, frankly. Especially given the amount of viewership this particular piece has gotten, I wish I had written that section differently -- I'm working on a follow-up that looks to identify solutions other than "virtual spaces that are less addictive/potentially disturbing."
I wasn't aware that Amsterdam had reversed course on a similar transition in the 1980s, but I'll look into it. I appreciate the recommendations.
For sure! Are you aware of any youth centers that model this well (i.e. largely run by kids, for kids)? I'm not super happy with my recommendation, honestly -- very keen to hear other ideas.
By kids, tricky—check out the book solidarity with children towards the end tho. But in the UK and Germany, there were youth clubs about 20,30 years ago that did some of this and had relative autonomy for teens—I’ve been interviewing people about it. I might make a little series!
Lovely article Eli!!! Made me think about that Japanese show where they have toddlers run errands for adults.
I agree— kids have an intrinsic desire to explore their environment (whether it be real or on a screen). And I think it’s a mix of factors that influence the freedom we afford our children to do that exploring, including those that you mentioned. In addition, there are cultures in which a shared responsibility for caring for children is emphasized more strongly (like in Japan), and environments that are safer for exploring. All of this is to say that I’m moving to Norway and will be raising my children there.
Thanks! I partially had in mind you and the Bulgarian boys running around with your slingshots -- kind of encouraging (aside from being very funny), goes to show that it's not impossible to have peer cultures in urban settings :)
You may not be aware, but there are significant issues that are not addressed in your writings. For example, unattended minors in many places will open the door to police sponsored harassment.
Additionally, children naturally group with their peers because they inherently trust their peers prior to the point where they are capable of deception, deceit and lying in a way that is not noticeable.
Importantly, you don't seem to have had much background with regards to thought reform, and torture, which is needed to understand that the things tech is doing are far more powerful than just creating spaces for play.
Torture is the imposition of stress beyond the point of an individual to cope, which has physiological effects. It uses the same pathway that we adopt culture, and these pathways at young ages we are blind to.
Sophisticated techniques in this area have been used for decades to manipulate people, make them compliant, and ensure compliance is rewarded; in short operant conditioning. For a background on this material I highly suggest you review case studies and literature covered by Robert Lifton, Joost Meerloo, Robert Cialdini, Chase Hughes (NCI), and the Kubark/COINTELPRO files (touching on Zersetzung - East German Stasi).
The physiological effects are a reduction of rational thought, leading to involuntary hypnosis, culminating in psychotic break (dissassociative/psychotic seeking annihilation through others).
Narcosynthesis/analysis used barbituates back in the 1950s because addiction had a clustering effect on people's ability to resist torture. Today, psychological priming and misassociation of stimuli is used to create the same trauma loops, and the brain doesn't develop enough to handle addiction until the mid-20s.
There are objective elements required for this that are relatively simple but in aggregate create torture. This appears in centralized schooling following groups of special interests related to Paulo Freire and his ilk; mixing and reboxing these torture techniques as teaching tools, which are parroted by teachers. The hot-potato for a classic example which induces bullying without direct direction to do so by the teacher (approval seeking students bully/harass outside of class, which is why students are nervous about answering; arbitrary disapproval leads to bullying by their peers).
Our natural psychology seeks consistency, techniques like fractionation, alice in wonderland, and other blind spots etc, all seek to impose inconsistency because it induces unnoticeable and unmitigated stress with exposure.
The elements are:
Cognitive Dissonance - by deception or otherwise where reality or expectations do not match.
Perceived or real threat of loss
Psychogical Blindspot - Cialdini Lever, or through non-verbal/verbal communications (distorted reflected appraisal)
Isolation - All blindspots become more effective
Lack of Agency to remove without loss (stripping locus of control)
Elicitation of participation (doing nothing results in loss)
Loss
These are structured in specific ways called trauma loops. This structuring follows a two prong loop that circles back on itself. There will be periods of strictness, followed by leniency, periods of punishment followed by relief, confession... by catharsis, push... by pull.
Clustering I've already mentioned where each use makes people more susceptible in short periods of time, gaming uses all these as well through orchestrated dynamic skill ranging to misassociate audio triggers.
These structured patterns impose the most possible stress, and are done so through channels that flood every waking hour and these work on adults. Children crystallize the changes in behavior after a time because they are vulnerable, it permanently disadvantages them.
The symptoms are often PTSD-like, procrastination (a trauma response), and it has been used to destroy the minds of intelligent people, because they are often more aware than others. How do you make a compliant population you can control. This is how you do it, and its been done since the 1970s.
This is also how you induce willful blindness in people prior to their ability to reason. Our decline as a species is directly tied to our inability to adapt because these memetic weapons have been used and are being used to demoralize following nation-state regime change playbooks.
While you’re not the first to raise this general point (there’s a whole organization called “Let Grow” in the US dedicated to the overall point), the Way you made the more specific point about independent peer cultures, and what it means for childhood in western physical and digital spaces was terrific. I have sent this to a bunch of people because it’s so fascinating. even if this is unpublished in the sense that you haven’t done rigorous research about it, it might very well be one of those things where the simplest explanation is often the truest. Thank you for writing this and I’m now a subscriber and I eagerly await other things you write.
Much appreciated! And thanks for pointing me to Let Grow -- very encouraging to see that there's an entire organization based around this point.
As the father of 3 kids, I think you are probably right about kids wanting their own space. But how can anyone realistically create a space better than Roblox without succumbing to monetization that taints the experience? It seems that the real problem here is one of social incentives. In pre-industrial societies like the one studied in the book “The Old Ways” for instance, capitalism simply didn’t exist. It isn’t that pre-capitalist societies were somehow utopian and simpler, but they had different kinds of failure modes than ours.
As a techie, I know first hand how expensive it is to build, monitor, and maintain a massive open world game. The moderation alone would cost millions per year and systems like Wikipedia’s editor model with its complex system of checks and balances has the wrong incentives and time to resolution. A griefer spraying pornography needs to be stopped now, not after a week of careful deliberation.
I’m happy to pay outright for games that have no ads or in app monetization, but there aren’t many titles to choose from because studios can make so much more per user by building virtual casinos and then those titles outcompete the less profitable competitors.
Do you think there’s a viable solution?
I'm not sure -- I would think that there are three main obstacles. One is monetization (i.e. keeping the digital space stable without requiring it to function as a casino); a second is age verification; and a third is content moderation. I'm still thinking all of this through, so please consider these very preliminary solutions
Re(1), I think paid subscriptions and perhaps government subsidy could easily offset the financial issues.
Re (2), it doesn't seem impossible to imagine facial recognition technology that would prevent adults from entering the space. Roblox is actually implementing something similar, though I haven't looked into how well it works.
Re (3): this is the thorniest problem. But I'm tempted to think that, if we assume adults actually can't make it into the space (big if, ofc), then we're better off providing in-game mechanisms that allow kids to deal with malfeasant behavior from other kids on their own. Kids in the long-term would probably be better off if adults didn't constantly step in to resolve their conflicts for them. But again, this laissez faire approach is only viable if adults can actually be kept off the platform.
I do also want to think more about physical solutions to this problem. Clearly, it's possible to have non-forager societies where kids preserve a healthy degree of independence -- we had something like it in the USA just a few decades ago, and in certain countries (i.e. Finland) it seems to hav been maintained.
Hey George,
I think one alternative online solution is VR Chat. It's been a while since I've tried it, but from what I remember it was huge collection of virtual spaces build by a large community of creators. There is very little monetization and a lot of freedom to create your own avatar and virtual spaces (if you have the technical skills, otherwise there are catalogues of user created content).
When I played it, it truly felt like the internet of the early 2000s. I believe the company making it has added a lot of safety features due to some complaints of abuse, but compared to something like Meta's attempt of a VR world, VR Chat feels like a non commercial, non-sanitized-for-advertisers type of experience.
One of the best things about VR Chat is finding a community you can connect with. I joined a weekly live theatre performance group where a group of various ages would take part in an interactive performance guided by a professional actor. There are groups to learn languages, sharing art, playing music live, roleplaying your favorite fictional world, exploring strange architecture, solving puzzles, playing games, watching movies, etc. You would likely need to do a bit of initial supervision so your kids don't end up stumbing into a VR Chat nightclub full of drunk adults, but I believe there are age verification and parental settings you can add. https://help.vrchat.com/hc/en-us/articles/33301610887443-Safety-Resources-For-Parents
I hope your kids can find that special space for them to be kids and explore their own creativity in a safe, yet unsupervised way. Kids should be able to be in spaces that allow them to form lifelong memories propelled by play and curiosity. If the friction to do it offline is too high, I hope that VR Chat or some other platform can help out with that.
Edit - I should also note that VR Chat doesn't require a headset. It works on desktop PCs with a monitor too. I also think that VR Chat might be a good way to get any of your kids that are interested in game development and 3D modeling to have an outlet for it if they want to make their own worlds and original characters.
Great article thank you.
Refreshing to read a more nuanced take on the subject.
Have you read ‘It’s complicated’ by dana boyd? Very similar argument, and whilst rooted in the era of MySpace, the insights and lessons are still extremely relevant.
Also, I think parents behaviour has also changed (less time outdoors, more screen time, perhaps longer working hours in some instances) and this has meant kids behaviours are partly mirroring parents, but also shaped by the options their parents create.
Many thanks! I haven't read 'it's complicated', but it looks relevant -- I'll check it out. I appreciate the recommendation.
Definitely agree that parent behavior has changed as well. While I think anthropologists overstate extent to which childhood centers on mimicry, it's still a major influence. So to your point, if kids see adults sitting at home on their phones all day, they'll absolutely treat that as the norm.
I wrote a little about this topic here, but you raise insights and perspectives I'd not considered, so thanks again!
https://curiousbehaviour.substack.com/p/will-someone-please-think-of-the
I'm thinking that the kids in the most traditional societies who roam the forest freely they probably often get exposed to disturbing content. E.g., the girls who peek into houses to see women giving birth; they also see people having sex (correct me if I'm wrong, but I've come to believe this is very common, and that the protection of kids, especially girls, from all sex knowledge is an invention of more complicated societies). They'll also witness their group members die in plain sight, having fallen into a river, down a cliff, or suchlike.
Another possible theory for "Why do independent peer cultures emerge so reliably in our species?":
Adults are largely "in control"/"in charge" (vs. kids) in a communal setting. The children simply cannot learn the experience of being in control without being independent.
Also check out Peter Gray, research at Boston College: https://petergray.substack.com -- some very similar concepts are discussed.
Aside from reading the blog, he has a book called Free to Learn if you prefer that format
I appreciate your insight and look forward to reading more!
Thank you for this thought-provoking text! One thing I'd like to highlight is that figure 13 about UNICEF childhood wellbeing rankings and mobility uses the UNICEF Innocenti report from 2013. In this year's Innocenti report, Finland is 17th where Portugal, for example, is fourth. The data in the former is from 2010 and in the latter from 2020 – has mobility changed significantly in these countries in ten years? In my experience, no.
Oh, interesting — thanks for pointing that out. I suspect you’re right that mobility hasn’t changed significantly, but it is notable that 2013 is right around when social media/smartphone use among kids really started to explode. Ofc, I’m arguing here that it isn’t the central driver for this change, but it certainly exacerbates the problem. So if there were major changes, perhaps it has something to do with the differing degrees to which smartphones were incorporated into the lives of children in these countries. (Though one would need to explain why that would affect mobility scores in particular, which are more determined by parental attitudes and features of the environment)
"Do we want to tear down the skyscrapers and unpave the roads? Should we demand a forest for our children? The truth is that we’re not going back"
You've included the graph from 2013 Unicef about children's mobility and happiness. The answer is there ; You can demand the same level of urbanism. Walk-able cities. You can demand to join the Netherlands, still #1 ahead of Finland in children's happiness - because they've designed urban places that can function without cars.
I don't like that this article devolves into solutioning this problem with virtual spaces.
There is nothing that the Netherlands has done that U.S. cities can't do. They weren't built for cars any more than the Netherlands. Our cities were bulldozed for cars. And it can reverse course like Amsterdam did back in the eighties. The only thing missing for this to happen is public support to generate political will.
That means, in YOUR neighborhood, vocal support in favor of taking space away from cars and giving it back to the people. Gradually. There needs to be voices to counteract the people who will complain if you take away any parking spaces, any lanes, any space on the road. Vocal support for the removal of a turning lane in favor of a separated bike path, and support for turning two way streets into one-way streets in residential neighborhoods so that proper sidewalks can be built. Vocal support for lower speed limits.
Vocal support for smaller apartment complexes in single-family home neighborhoods, the removal of mandatory setback requirements, mandatory parking spaces, ... because corner-stores, public transit only works if there are enough people around to keep them going.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply! I also don't feel satisfied by my conclusion, frankly. Especially given the amount of viewership this particular piece has gotten, I wish I had written that section differently -- I'm working on a follow-up that looks to identify solutions other than "virtual spaces that are less addictive/potentially disturbing."
I wasn't aware that Amsterdam had reversed course on a similar transition in the 1980s, but I'll look into it. I appreciate the recommendations.
It's Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Whoops, autocorrect must have messed it up -- thanks for the correction!
This is great. But also we should make youth centers and let kids be there! In person.
For sure! Are you aware of any youth centers that model this well (i.e. largely run by kids, for kids)? I'm not super happy with my recommendation, honestly -- very keen to hear other ideas.
By kids, tricky—check out the book solidarity with children towards the end tho. But in the UK and Germany, there were youth clubs about 20,30 years ago that did some of this and had relative autonomy for teens—I’ve been interviewing people about it. I might make a little series!
Oh fascinating -- please do, that would be super interesting :)
Lovely article Eli!!! Made me think about that Japanese show where they have toddlers run errands for adults.
I agree— kids have an intrinsic desire to explore their environment (whether it be real or on a screen). And I think it’s a mix of factors that influence the freedom we afford our children to do that exploring, including those that you mentioned. In addition, there are cultures in which a shared responsibility for caring for children is emphasized more strongly (like in Japan), and environments that are safer for exploring. All of this is to say that I’m moving to Norway and will be raising my children there.
Thanks! I partially had in mind you and the Bulgarian boys running around with your slingshots -- kind of encouraging (aside from being very funny), goes to show that it's not impossible to have peer cultures in urban settings :)
You may not be aware, but there are significant issues that are not addressed in your writings. For example, unattended minors in many places will open the door to police sponsored harassment.
Additionally, children naturally group with their peers because they inherently trust their peers prior to the point where they are capable of deception, deceit and lying in a way that is not noticeable.
Importantly, you don't seem to have had much background with regards to thought reform, and torture, which is needed to understand that the things tech is doing are far more powerful than just creating spaces for play.
Torture is the imposition of stress beyond the point of an individual to cope, which has physiological effects. It uses the same pathway that we adopt culture, and these pathways at young ages we are blind to.
Sophisticated techniques in this area have been used for decades to manipulate people, make them compliant, and ensure compliance is rewarded; in short operant conditioning. For a background on this material I highly suggest you review case studies and literature covered by Robert Lifton, Joost Meerloo, Robert Cialdini, Chase Hughes (NCI), and the Kubark/COINTELPRO files (touching on Zersetzung - East German Stasi).
The physiological effects are a reduction of rational thought, leading to involuntary hypnosis, culminating in psychotic break (dissassociative/psychotic seeking annihilation through others).
Narcosynthesis/analysis used barbituates back in the 1950s because addiction had a clustering effect on people's ability to resist torture. Today, psychological priming and misassociation of stimuli is used to create the same trauma loops, and the brain doesn't develop enough to handle addiction until the mid-20s.
There are objective elements required for this that are relatively simple but in aggregate create torture. This appears in centralized schooling following groups of special interests related to Paulo Freire and his ilk; mixing and reboxing these torture techniques as teaching tools, which are parroted by teachers. The hot-potato for a classic example which induces bullying without direct direction to do so by the teacher (approval seeking students bully/harass outside of class, which is why students are nervous about answering; arbitrary disapproval leads to bullying by their peers).
Our natural psychology seeks consistency, techniques like fractionation, alice in wonderland, and other blind spots etc, all seek to impose inconsistency because it induces unnoticeable and unmitigated stress with exposure.
The elements are:
Cognitive Dissonance - by deception or otherwise where reality or expectations do not match.
Perceived or real threat of loss
Psychogical Blindspot - Cialdini Lever, or through non-verbal/verbal communications (distorted reflected appraisal)
Isolation - All blindspots become more effective
Lack of Agency to remove without loss (stripping locus of control)
Elicitation of participation (doing nothing results in loss)
Loss
These are structured in specific ways called trauma loops. This structuring follows a two prong loop that circles back on itself. There will be periods of strictness, followed by leniency, periods of punishment followed by relief, confession... by catharsis, push... by pull.
Clustering I've already mentioned where each use makes people more susceptible in short periods of time, gaming uses all these as well through orchestrated dynamic skill ranging to misassociate audio triggers.
These structured patterns impose the most possible stress, and are done so through channels that flood every waking hour and these work on adults. Children crystallize the changes in behavior after a time because they are vulnerable, it permanently disadvantages them.
The symptoms are often PTSD-like, procrastination (a trauma response), and it has been used to destroy the minds of intelligent people, because they are often more aware than others. How do you make a compliant population you can control. This is how you do it, and its been done since the 1970s.
This is also how you induce willful blindness in people prior to their ability to reason. Our decline as a species is directly tied to our inability to adapt because these memetic weapons have been used and are being used to demoralize following nation-state regime change playbooks.
The blindness is quite real.