Terrorist Wanted: ISIS' recruitment strategy

“The ISIS death cult threatens the people of Iraq, the region, and the wider world,”

                                                                                              -Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott

Social media has managed to pervade all aspects of our life. It is not surprising then, that radical extremists from all corners of the world have begun to make use of it. It offers interactivity and reach unlike any other medium, besides being cheap and easy to use. While Al-Qaeda, set the precedent for using social media to propagate its violent messages, it is ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] that has emerged as the pioneer in the field of harnessing social media to make its presence known and felt. So much so that governments and intelligence agencies across the world today are realizing the need to ‘win the internet’ in order to succeed in their fight against terrorism.

It is ISIS’s unique use of social media as a recruitment strategy that makes it a particularly terrifying enemy.  Its mastery of online communication and its skilful use of social media has managed to gain itself an audience with not only people from the Middle East (who would be more likely sympathizers) but also Muslims in the Western world. ISIS has thus realized the need to go virtual in order to make itself relevant and its presence felt. Its media initiatives are tailor-made to the propaganda it seeks to spread. Primary among them being its recruitment of young Islamists into the ‘Caliphate’.  Its foray into ‘Western’ social media like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter as well as its proven capability of developing complex coding [as seen in ISIS created Twitter app called the ‘Dawn of Glad Tidings’] have ushered in a new unique form of Electronic Jihad.

Their sleek social media strategy thus appeals to the disillusioned Western youth. Whether it is plain curiosity or a need for validation, ISIS seems to have something for everyone. They understand the power of information and the compelling use of powerful imagery in social media; and they aren’t averse to using it to inspire their recruits as well as instil fear in their opponents. Images of gore, beheadings and violence have appeared side by side with images showing foot soldiers eating Snickers bars and nurturing kittens. ISIS has thus managed to construct and control its narrative on social media, and is perhaps why it has been more successful in recruiting foreigners into its fold as compared to other extremist groups. Their recruitment strategy is not limited to males alone. The small but disturbingly rising network of female supporters have left governments across the world worried. Despite the reality that they will be subjected to the harsh Sharia law and be delegated to traditional gender biased roles of mother and wife, young Western women are risking life and limb to travel to ISIS-controlled lands in addition to using social media themselves to promote support for ISIS.

ISIS realizes that in order to be viable in the long term, there is a need to establish a state. And to do so would require the establishment of basic services for the population and the creation of a revenue system, which would not be possible without an educated workforce. Their social media recruitment strategy now seeks to engage successful professionals that include doctors, engineers, and teachers, in addition to fighters. The internet is not the only tool for radicalisation, their monthly magazine Dabiq [that serves as glossy guide to terrorism how-to] in its August 2014 issue appealed to this audience to come and aid in the formation of this nascent Islamic state. Furthermore in an attempt to control their narrative, besides using social media ISIS is now looking to recruit professional media personnel. In a way, ISIS seems to be redefining Global Jihad. As opposed to Al-Qaeda, that used social media to proliferate affiliate groups and regarded America in particular as the enemy, ISIS uses social media as the key to developing a Muslim state while branding the entire West as the enemy.

We can therefore conclude that ISIS has not invented any new strategies of violence but has merely redefined and enhanced it to create a modern brand of terrorism. Its sophisticated use and understanding of social media, executed with sleek, Hollywood style action has made it a threat that at all costs must not be taken lightly. Governments will need to unite if they intend to win against ISIS. Efforts will need to be focused on dismantling this group in order to eliminate its presence. Unfortunately, to do so, it would be necessary to fight fire with fire in order to win the war against terrorism. However it would be imperative that we calibrate the narratives, themes, and messages accordingly in order to prevent disastrous after effects.

Kimberly Rodrigues

Field experiments for everyday life

Book Review

List, J., & Gneezy, U. (2014). The why axis: Hidden motives and the undiscovered economics of everyday life. Random House UK, 2013; pp. 288, Rs.331.

Buy on Amazon

Many social scientists will agree that the best way to get to the heart of a social phenomenon is to observe it as it happens, much like a fly on the wall. This assertion, comes with a number of qualifying statements, the most pertinent of all relating to the scale of the social phenomenon (i.e., local, national, or global). Of course, a social scientist may not be able to capture the entire process, but will often want to address questions related to the source of such phenomena (“Why do women earn less than men in most labour markets?”) or understand its impact on human life and the social environment (“What happens when schools incentivize students to learn with money?”). Ideally, a scientist would like to address the problem of causality, well beyond merely establishing interesting associations. In ‘The Why Axis’, John List and Uri Gneezy argue that the best way to get to the heart of the matter is by using field experiments.

Apart from psychologists, many social scientists have abandoned the use of experimentation in academic research, according to the authors. Their introductory note cites this, as well as the clarity that experiments can provide on the problem of causality, as one of their main reasons for taking up this methodology. The authors draw on their extensive work in gender differences, education, charitable giving, and consumer pricing using field experiments to highlight how a little experimentation can go a long way. Given that these are a broad spectrum of issues that are common ground for economists now (Levitt and List, 2009), the authors are able to clearly highlight the methodological benefits of using field experiments to infer causal links.

Going  into extensive details of how they ran their experiments, the authors are able to maintain academic rigor in their exposition, while also avoiding any heavy jargon. While the authors do not explicitly explain how to run an experiment (which might have been useful), they offer a wide range of their own professional experiences to learn from. In choosing to disentangle racial and prejudice-based discrimination from “economic” discrimination, the authors explore an area that is relatively new to economics – whether incentives are the reason behind discrimination. They throw in a mix of surprising (and sometimes counterintuitive) results – from finding that incentivizing one actor in a school system of teachers, parents, and students is enough to improving test scores, to greater evidence of economic discrimination against homosexuals by those are most likely to be discriminated against themselves.

The Why Axis also draws on List and Gneezy’s large scale public schools field experiment in Chicago, which cost nearly $15,000 per student to implement. Given that they are still running a majority of the studies related to schooling, some results cited were preliminary, but offer significant glimpses into policy implications for improving public schools in America’s poorest areas. They also cite interface with public officials (such as Ron Huberman, credited with turning around the Chicago Public Schools system), offering important insights into how to get such large-scale field experiments funded and executed.

However, there continues to remain scepticism about the external validity of the results of such large scale field experiments, as well as the replicability (given the costs associated with running an experiment; but see Ehmke and Shogren, 2010). While List and Gneezy address these issues only briefly at the start and end of the book, it does little to convince a business manager or young researcher to weigh the value of conducting such experiments. If anything, in arguing that “it would be too costly to not experiment” (emphasis added), The Why Axis leaves the perennial question of making such experiments cost-effective unanswered. Perhaps a useful companion to the book may be along the lines of previous books with similar themes (Nudge by Thaler and Sunstein has a Nudge blog and guidelines on how to implement successful nudges in everyday lives, Freakonomics authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner started a blog as well).

The Why Axis is an optimal compilation of field experiments in economics, and a good introduction to recent evidence from using such a methodology in economics (in addition to Banerjee and Duflo’s Poor Economics, 2011). The authors provide interesting insights into human behaviour by harnessing the powerful causal inference offered by field experiments, while also suggesting future directions for where experimentation can lead the social sciences. Ultimately, understanding the black box that is the human mind has now become important to economic science.

                                                                                                                                                        Anirudh Tagat

Neuroscience’s evil twin: The Neuromyth

“Effective teaching might be the hardest job there is”

– William Glasser

With the advent of neuroeducation, an offspring of neuroscience and psychology that informs educational policy, educators are being bombarded with various new findings- all promising magical results and startling discoveries. It is glorious to think of scientists in lab coats using brain activations to tell layman what happens when they learn or remember, but herein lays its very danger. Much like the game of Chinese Whispers, things begin resembling the truth lesser and lesser with each passing minute. And just like that, neuroeducation switches to its ugly alter ego of neuromyths.

A neuromyth is “a misconception generated by a misunderstanding, a misreading, or a misquoting of facts scientifically established (by brain research) to make a case for use of brain research in education and other contexts”. Neuromyths are becoming a hindrance to the education system worldwide, and the ways in which they arise are numerous (Pasquinelli, 2012).

Scientific facts, when distorted, turn into neuromyths. For example, a popular myth states that children learn better when they are taught by their preferred learning style (which can be visual, auditory or kinaesthetic); and this myth is based on the finding that these modalities are based in different parts of the brain. This however, ignores the fact that these regions are highly interconnected and that children do not actually process information better when they depend only on one modality. Therefore, scientific facts can be oversimplified and then misinterpreted.

Neuromyths can also be the result of actual scientific facts that have later been disproven. A prime example would be that of the Mozart Effect- that listening to classical music boosted one’s IQ points. This was quickly debunked, as studies failed to replicate it.

Finally, and most commonly, neuromyths can be because of the misinterpretation of scientific results. A good look at the idea of ‘critical periods’ of learning (that certain types of learning only occurs during certain times in life, especially childhood) exemplifies this. However, it is now seen that although there are prime ages for learning (eg. Acquisition of words, distinguishing between visual stimuli), this is hardly set in stone.

Teachers, or educators are more likely to fall susceptible to neuromyths possibly because of the sheer amount of information they encounter about the brain, both correct and incorrect. It could also be a backfiring effect, as teachers who are more eager to implement these neuroscientific findings out of sheer goodwill often come across neuromyths because they look for quicker solutions. What darkens the picture is the fact that neuroscience novices are no better than laypeople at distinguishing fact from reality, it is only the experts who are able to do so!

Resolving the issue of the perpetuation of neuromyths (and the horrors of products like the Brain Gym that still exist despite having no scientific backing) would be a two-way street involving increased communication from both parties: educators as well as neuroscientists. Neuroscientists need to make sure that translations of their work in the media are not miscontrued, and developers of educational products need to hire educational consultants who have credentials in the field of neuroscience. On the other hand, initial teacher training for educators should necessitate looking at findings with a critical eye, and not judging any article with brain images as more scientific (as people are found to!).  

It’s quite often that one hears of the common saying of half-baked knowledge being a dangerous thing. This, however, is much more frightening when put in regard to people who are expected to dispense knowledge- our teachers. Being consumers of knowledge, a critical appraisal of the product we consume is therefore essential.

Sneha Mani