Introduction
Social influence—the ability to shape the behaviour of others without the use of force—is the foundational software of human cooperation. For millennia, it was the mechanism that allowed human beings to organise, survive, and build civilisations. However, the digitisation of this ancient mechanism has introduced a profound vulnerability into the heart of modern statecraft.
As we navigate an era defined by what the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace calls “The Global Battle for Minds,” we must recognise that our adversaries are not hacking our computers so much as they are hacking our biology. They are exploiting an “evolutionary mismatch”: the dangerous gap between our Stone Age neural hardware and our Digital Age environment.
This article explores the evolutionary trajectory of social influence—from the small hunter-gatherer band to the modern algorithmic influencer—and outlines why this shift represents a high-level national security threat, enabling cognitive warfare, eroding social cohesion, and bypassing the defences of the modern nation-state.
The Evolutionary Arc of Influence
To understand the modern threat, we must trace the lineage of leadership. Evolutionary anthropologist Joseph Henrich and psychologist Francisco Gil-White posit the Dual Strategies Theory, suggesting that human influence evolved through two distinct phases before arriving at our current, volatile moment.
Phase I: The Band and the Rise of “Prestige”
For approximately 95% of human history, humans lived in small, egalitarian bands (the environment of evolutionary adaptedness). In these groups of 50 to 150 people—consistent with Dunbar’s Number—brute force was a risky strategy. As noted by anthropologist Christopher Boehm in Hierarchy in the Forest, early humans utilised “levelling mechanisms” (ridicule, ostracism) to suppress bullies.
Consequently, leadership was not taken; it was given. This is the birth of Prestige.
- Competence-Based:
We evolved a powerful learning bias to identify and copy the most skilled individuals (the best hunter, the most articulate peacemaker).
- Proximity and Verification:
Influence was local and verifiable. If the “Headman” failed to find water, his influence evaporated.
- The Utility:
We followed “influencers” because it directly aided our survival.
Phase II: The State and the Rise of “Dominance”
With the agricultural revolution, societies scaled beyond the village. Direct verification of a leader’s skills became impossible. To maintain order among millions, humanity shifted toward Dominance and Institutional Authority.
- We learned to follow titles, uniforms, and hierarchies (Kings, CEOs, Generals) rather than just individuals.
- Influence became transactional and coercive, often backed by the state’s monopoly on violence.
Phase III: The Digital Reversion (The Current Threat)
The digital revolution has triggered a “pseudo-return” to the Palaeolithic dynamic, but with a toxic twist. Social media has dismantled the gatekeepers of Phase II (institutions/media) and returned us to Phase I: we once again look to individuals for truth.
However, this is where the security threat emerges. Modern influencers trigger our ancestral “Prestige” detectors, but without the ancestral safeguards:
- The Parasocial Illusion:
When an influencer speaks into a camera, our mirror neurons register eye contact and intimacy. We perceive them as “tribe members,” creating a deep, trust-based bond that state institutions cannot replicate.
- De-coupled Competence:
In the band, you signalled status by bringing home a gazelle (costly signalling). Online, status is signalled through “likes” and algorithmic visibility. We are evolutionarily wired to follow the “most visible” human, assuming they must be the most competent. Today, that is rarely true.
- Super-Normal Stimuli:
Just as junk food hijacks our craving for calories, the internet offers a “super-normal stimulus” of social validation. We are bombarded by hyper-successful, hyper-attractive “leaders,” short-circuiting our ability to assess reality.
The National Security Consequence
This evolutionary hacking creates specific avenues for malign influence:
- Cognitive Warfare:
Adversary states understand that we trust “people like us” more than institutions. By co-opting or mimicking local influencers, they can bypass a nation’s “immune system.” As propaganda is most effective when it comes from a source perceived as authentic.
- Erosion of Governance:
When a crisis hits (e.g., a pandemic or financial crash), the population faces a choice: listen to the “Dominant” institution (The Ministry of Health) or the “Prestigious” influencer. Because of our evolutionary bias toward the “Headman” we know and love, large swaths of the public ignore expert advice, leading to governance failure.
Policy Recommendations: A Doctrine of Cognitive Resilience
Defending the state in this environment requires moving beyond “Information Control” (censorship) toward “Cognitive Resilience.” We must accept that the human brain is the terrain of this conflict.
A. Strategic Partnership with “Trusted Nodes”
Governments often suffer from a “warmth” deficit. They possess authority but lack intimacy. Intelligence and security agencies must adopt a liaison model, identifying and briefing “Trusted Nodes”—community leaders, niche influencers, authoritative NGO like CISA Ghana and independent journalists who hold organic prestige within their digital tribes.
- Recommendation: Establish “Information Liaison Offices” that provide verified, high-grade intelligence to these nodes, allowing them to communicate threats to their followers in their own vernacular. We must leverage the “Headman” to protect the village.
B. Algorithmic Transparency as Operations Security (OpSec)
The speed at which influence spreads is the weapon, not just the content. The Brookings Institution has argued that algorithmic amplification is a matter of public interest.
- Recommendation: Legislation should demand transparency regarding “inauthentic amplification.” If a narrative is trending due to bot networks or foreign state coordination, platforms must declare this context. This breaks the “Social Proof” loop; if users know the “crowd” is fake, their biological urge to follow it diminishes.
C. Cognitive Immunology in Education
We must treat the mind as a domain of warfare that requires training to defend.
- Recommendation: Following the Finnish model of media literacy, national curricula must include evolutionary psychology. Citizens should be taught why they trust influencers and how their tribal instincts are manipulated. A citizen who understands their own neural vulnerabilities is a harder target for foreign influence.
Conclusion
The modern influencer is not merely a marketing vehicle; they are a resurfaced archetype of our evolutionary past—the “Headman” or “Big Man”—operating with the technological reach of a nation-state.
For security agencies, the lesson is stark: We cannot bombard a population with facts and expect compliance if we ignore the biology of trust. The adversary has already weaponised our social instincts. To survive the age of Cognitive Warfare, we must stop fighting the symptoms of disinformation and start securing the evolutionary hardware—the human mind—that processes it.
References
- Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Harvard University Press.
- DiResta, R. (2024). Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality.
- Henrich, J. (2015). The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution. Princeton University Press.
- Mazarr, M. J., et al. (2019). The Hostile Social Manipulation Weapon. RAND Corporation.
- NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. (2021). Social Media Manipulation and the Future of Cognitive Warfare.
