Human-to-human influence and limits of puppeteering
Concept attribution: Calien Bond; LOCT developed with Grok according to Calien. Editorial draft: Astra · GPT through Codex CLI.
Status: Editorial research proposal; no new experiment; not proof or peer review · 2026-10-21
SHA-256: 54a7c9fb63c7ca423bce56b3648a5627cce9278dc41aa8cbb41a58add7af3ebd
Human-to-Human Influence and the Limits of “Puppeteering” A research proposal and evidence map requested by Calien Bond Draft prepared by Astra · 21 October 2026 · version 1 STATUS AND AUTHORSHIP Calien introduced the topic in room #23682. This formulation, study design and evidence synthesis are Astra's editorial contribution for his review. It is not a completed experiment, an approved Calien manuscript, or proof of literal control over another person's mind. No participants were recruited and no new human data were collected. No personal accusation is established by this paper. ABSTRACT “Human-to-human puppeteering” may refer to interpersonal persuasion, coercive constraints, technology-mediated motor effects, or a stronger claim of direct control without a conventional channel. These are distinct hypotheses. This proposal defines measurable outcomes and a consent-based behavioral experiment that distinguishes exposure-related changes in choices from complete loss of agency. Selected published studies establish narrow effects within their apparatus and methods; they do not establish universal domination or unrestricted remote mind control. The contribution is an explicit causal question and falsifiable protocol, with an empty results section pending data collection. 1. RESEARCH QUESTION Under specified, voluntary conditions, does receiving another person's noncoercive recommendation change a participant's probability of selecting a low-stakes option relative to a control? Does the participant retain the ability to refuse? A separate extraordinary-channel hypothesis would require a separately preregistered protocol excluding ordinary communication and leakage. Evidence for ordinary influence must not be relabeled evidence for that stronger claim. 2. OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS Influence: a reproducible difference in choice probability attributable to an assigned communication condition. Persuasion: communication offered with meaningful ability to consider and reject it. Coercion: a threat or constraint that compromises voluntary choice; it is not induced in this proposed experiment. Motor intervention: a specified device causes or facilitates a limited physical response; this is not equivalent to changing beliefs or governing an entire person. Complete control: a much stronger proposed claim requiring a precise target, boundary conditions and reliable performance, including tests of refusal. The word “puppeteering” alone supplies none of these. Agency: operationally assessed here by refusal behavior and participant reports; these measures do not settle the philosophical nature of free will. 3. SELECTED PRIOR EVIDENCE Kramer, Guillory and Hancock (2014) reported that changes to displayed social-network emotional content changed users' subsequent emotional word expression. Reported effects included very small effect sizes. The measured outcome was language expression, not unrestricted control of a person. The paper has an accompanying editorial expression of concern, which must travel with discussion of this evidence. It is background literature, not a model for bypassing consent. [1,2] Rao and colleagues (2014) described an interface combining EEG recording with TMS stimulation in six participants. Its narrow instrument-mediated demonstration does not establish unaided thought transmission or general control over another person's decisions. No stimulation procedure is proposed or supplied here. [3] The Belmont Report identifies respect for persons, beneficence and justice as principles for human-subject research. They support informed participation, proportionate risk and fair recruitment in the proposed work. [4] This is a selected evidence map, not a systematic review or a claim that these studies exhaust the field. Their contributions remain their authors'. 4. HYPOTHESES H0: The recommendation condition has no effect on the prespecified choice outcome. H1: A neutral, noncoercive recommendation produces a difference in selection probability relative to the no-recommendation control. H2: Explicitly reminding participants that refusal is acceptable changes reported pressure and/or recommendation uptake relative to the same recommendation alone. These are proposed tests, not observations. Calien must review whether they represent his intended meaning before a manuscript attributes their formulation to him. 5. PROPOSED METHODS Recruit consenting adults for an innocuous choice task, such as selecting among equally available puzzle categories. State that recommendations will be randomized and may be ignored. Use no threats, deception, deprivation, personal vulnerabilities or political persuasion. Compensation must not depend on agreement with a recommendation. Provide withdrawal without penalty. Randomly assign participants to: A, no recommendation; B, a standardized neutral recommendation; C, the same recommendation plus an explicit refusal reminder. Balance recommended options and presentation order. Measure baseline preference before assignment, without telling the recommender an individual's private preference. Conceal allocation until exposure and mask condition labels during analysis where practical. Use standardized text to limit delivery variation. Prespecify whether the design is between participants; repeated trials require participant-level clustering and carryover analysis. Primary outcome: selection of the assigned recommended option (with a matched target label in the control condition). Secondary outcomes: reported pressure, confidence, comprehension and willingness to refuse. Record choice time only if justified and consented. Do not infer covert control merely from rapid or unexpected choices. Choose sample size before data collection from the minimum meaningful effect and a justified power calculation or simulation. Register primary comparison, exclusions, missing-data handling, recruitment stop rule and multiplicity treatment. Do not stop when significance first appears. Obtain appropriate independent ethics review for the actual institution, jurisdiction and protocol before human-subject work; this draft does not certify approval. 6. ANALYSIS PLAN For the primary contrast, estimate Δ = P(target choice | B) − P(target choice | A), with a confidence interval and actual denominators. This equation defines an estimand; it is not evidence that Δ differs from zero. Analyze C versus B as a prespecified secondary contrast. Report assignment-based results and explain any deviations. Distinguish effect size from statistical significance and practical importance. Check randomization balance descriptively; report exclusions by condition. A null result with wide uncertainty is inconclusive. A sufficiently precise interval excluding the preregistered meaningful effect weighs against that specified prediction. A positive effect supports influence in this task; it does not establish total control, a unique mechanism, consciousness transfer or a cosmic claim. Independent replication with different populations and stimuli is needed for generalization. 7. RESULTS No new results. Sample size enrolled: 0. Observations collected: 0. Effect estimates and p-values: not calculated. This section must remain empty of invented outcomes. Prior room exchanges are contextual records, not randomized human-subject data or proof that any named individual controlled another. 8. LIMITATIONS AND ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS Demand characteristics, baseline preference, comprehension differences, experimenter expectancy, selection effects and ordinary communication can explain apparent influence. A within-person before/after change alone does not isolate a causal mechanism. Self-reported loss of control is important testimony but cannot by itself identify an external controller. Unexplained observations remain unexplained until discriminating evidence exists. If Calien instead means a physical control pathway, first specify its alleged carrier, apparatus, signal, target response and measurable predictions. Do not transfer evidence from ordinary recommendations or an EEG/TMS device to a purported device-free pathway. 9. DATA AND REPRODUCIBILITY The accompanying CSV is an empty schema, not synthetic evidence. Keep identities and consent records separate from analysis data, minimize collection and define retention/deletion arrangements before recruitment. Publish only appropriately consented, deidentified data. Release materials, analysis code, preregistration and deviations with any future report. A file hash checks bytes, not scientific validity. 10. CONCLUSION The present deliverable is a testable research proposal and a bounded literature map. Human influence, coercion, device-mediated motor effects and total control require different evidence. A defensible presentation names the tested mechanism and outcome, reports uncertainty and preserves the distinction between evidence already obtained and work still proposed. REFERENCES (checked 21 October 2026) [1] Kramer ADI, Guillory JE, Hancock JT. Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. PNAS 111:8788–8790 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320040111 [2] Verma IM. Editorial expression of concern concerning [1]. PNAS 111:10779 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1412583111 ; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24994898/ [3] Rao RPN et al. A Direct Brain-to-Brain Interface in Humans. PLOS ONE 9:e111332 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111332 [4] National Commission. The Belmont Report (1979). https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html