Mindjacking

You're about to make a decision.

Maybe it's what to buy, what to believe, who to trust, whether to take the job. Before you decide, you do what feels natural: you check.

You Google it. You ask ChatGPT. You look for reviews, ratings, consensus. You find an expert who seems credible and adopt their conclusion. You scroll until the algorithm shows you something that feels like an answer.

Then you move forward, confident you've done your homework.

But here's the question you didn't ask: Did you actually decide? Or did you just locate someone else's decision and borrow it?

Notice what happened. You didn't evaluate the options yourself—weigh the evidence, test the logic, form your own judgment. You searched for someone who'd already done that, then adopted their conclusion. The thinking was outsourced. Only the clicking was yours.

That moment—the moment you reached for external validation instead of forming your own judgment—is where mindjacking happens.

What Mindjacking Really Means

The word might sound familiar. Science fiction has used it for years—cyberpunk novels, video games, stories where hackers hijack neural implants and take control. That version is dramatic, violent, obvious. You'd notice. You'd fight back.

Real mindjacking is nothing like that.

Mindjacking is the systematic capture of your ability to evaluate information and make decisions for yourself—quietly replaced by borrowed thinking from algorithms, experts, platforms, and tribes.

It's gradual. It accumulates through a thousand small surrenders. Each one reasonable. Each one easier than the alternative.

Let the algorithm rank the results—you were busy anyway. Let the expert tell you what to think—they know more than you do. Let the platform choose what comes next—you're tired of deciding.

Each surrender is insignificant. Together they add up to a transfer of your thinking so complete you don't notice what's gone.

Here's what makes mindjacking different from ordinary influence or persuasion: you choose it. Every time. No one forces you to stop evaluating. You volunteer—because independent thinking feels harder than borrowing someone else's conclusion.

That's why it works. And that's why awareness alone won't save you.

The Four Systems

The systems that capture your thinking aren't hidden. You use them every day. And while the underlying mechanisms are as old as influence itself, the modern versions are more pervasive, more optimized, and harder to see.

Algorithms pre-evaluate before you see anything. Search results are ranked. Feeds are curated. Recommendations are generated. By the time information reaches you, it's been filtered through systems designed to maximize engagement, not accuracy.

Search for information about a health symptom. The results you see aren't ranked by medical accuracy—they're ranked by search optimization, ad spend, and engagement metrics. The clinic that paid for placement appears above the research hospital. The article designed to keep you clicking outranks the one that would actually answer your question. You evaluate what's in front of you, never realizing what was filtered out before you arrived.

You think you're choosing from the full range of options. You're choosing from what the algorithm decided to show you.

Expert culture teaches you that your own judgment is insufficient. Trust the science. Listen to the professionals. Defer to credentials. The message is consistent: someone else is more qualified to think about this than you are.

Sometimes that's true. A cardiologist knows more about heart disease than you do. But the habit of deference becomes automatic, applied even when your own evaluation would serve you better.

In 2010, a Harvard professor gave a TED talk claiming that standing like a superhero for two minutes would change your hormones. Seventy million people watched. They stood in bathroom stalls before job interviews, hands on hips, believing science had proven this would transform their psychology.

It didn't replicate. One of the original authors publicly disowned the research.

But almost no one who changed their behavior had read the original study. They never examined the sample size of 42 participants. Never questioned the methodology. Harvard. TED. A confident expert. That was enough.

Source evaluated. Evidence ignored.

Social proof replaces your assessment with the crowd's. What's trending. What your friends liked. What people like you believe.

Think about how you choose a restaurant in an unfamiliar city. You don't evaluate the menu, the ingredients, the chef's training. You check the ratings. 4.7 stars with 2,000 reviews beats 4.2 stars with 50, even though you have no idea who left those reviews or what they value in a meal. Numbers feel like evidence. They're consensus dressed up as quality.

Platforms surface social validation constantly because agreement feels good and belonging feels safe. So you stop asking "is this true?" and start asking "do others think this is true?" The answer to that question is easier to find. It's also the wrong question.

Manufactured urgency short-circuits deliberation entirely. Limited time offers. Breaking news alerts. Countdown timers. Flash sales ending in 3... 2... 1...

Every countdown delivers the same message: decide now. Not because now is the right time to decide, but because waiting might mean thinking, and thinking might mean choosing differently. Urgency manufactures action by eliminating the space for reflection.

Every one of these systems serves someone's interest—engagement for platforms, compliance for institutions, sales for companies. And every one serves that interest the same way: by making your own thinking feel unnecessary.

What Mindjacking Destroys

Mindjacking doesn't make you stupid. It makes you dependent.

Two thinking skills erode. They're different, and you need both.

Evaluation independence is the ability to assess whether a claim is valid—not whether the person making it has credentials, not whether experts agree, but whether the evidence actually supports the conclusion.

You've seen what happens when this skill is missing. Someone shares an article with a headline that confirms what they already believe. They never click through. Never read the methodology. Never notice that the study was funded by the industry it exonerates, or that the sample size was twelve people, or that the conclusion doesn't match the data. The headline was enough.

Evaluation requires practice. It requires tolerance for uncertainty. It requires willingness to sit with a question long enough to form your own view. Outsource evaluation often enough, and this capacity weakens.

Decision independence is the ability to make choices and act on your own judgment—not just analyze options, but actually commit to a path without needing someone else to validate it first.

Picture a doctor's office.

A woman walks in holding printed pages—journal articles, study summaries, treatment comparisons. She's done her homework. Spent hours on medical databases, reading research, assessing methodology, weighing evidence. She understands her condition and the options better than most medical students would.

The doctor reviews her analysis. It's thorough. Sophisticated, even.

"This is impressive," the doctor says. "You've really done the work."

She nods. Then looks up.

"So what should I do?"

Perfect evaluation. Zero decision capacity.

She could assess the evidence but couldn't act on her own assessment. She needed permission. Validation. Someone with authority to tell her that her conclusion was correct before she could commit to it.

It works the other way too. Think of someone you know who decides fast—trusts their gut, never waits for permission, picks the restaurant in three seconds. Now think about how often that person gets burned by bad information. The confident investment based on a tip they never verified. The strong opinion built on an article they didn't read past the headline.

Confident decision-making built on evidence they never evaluated.

Both skills need each other. Without evaluation independence, your decisions rest on borrowed assessments you can't verify. Without decision independence, evaluation becomes academic—you analyze everything and still ask someone else to choose.

Lose either one and you're trapped.

The Evidence

The decline isn't theoretical.

A Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon study tracked knowledge workers handling real tasks. They found that 40% of the time, participants applied zero critical thinking to AI outputs. No cognitive engagement whatsoever. The more they trusted the AI, the less they thought.

Drivers tell a similar story. McGill University followed them over three years and found that those who relied heavily on GPS showed steeper declines in spatial memory and cognitive mapping ability. They didn't start with worse navigation skills. The extensive use caused the decline.

Brain imaging confirms the pattern. MIT's Media Lab compared people using AI assistants to those thinking independently. AI users showed weaker neural connectivity across multiple brain regions. When researchers switched them to unassisted tasks, the effects persisted. Participants couldn't recall key content from work they'd done with AI help.

One participant in a UK study put it simply: "I rely so much on AI that I don't think I'd know how to solve certain problems without it."

Skills atrophy when unused. A pianist who stops playing doesn't store the ability somewhere safe—neural pathways weaken, muscle memory fades. Fifteen years later, they're not a pianist who hasn't practiced. They're a person who used to play piano.

Evaluation and decision-making work the same way. Every assessment you outsource weakens those pathways. Every choice you delegate lets those circuits fade. The loss is gradual enough that you don't notice it happening—until one day you realize you can't sit with a hard problem the way you used to.

Why Knowing Won't Save You

If you've read this far, you probably recognize some of these patterns in yourself. You might be thinking: now that I'm aware of it, I'll be more careful.

You won't.

Research consistently shows that teaching people about cognitive biases barely reduces their susceptibility. Awareness doesn't create resistance. It creates the illusion of resistance—you walk away feeling inoculated, which makes you more vulnerable, not less.

Mindjacking doesn't feel like an attack. It feels like help. Like efficiency. Like common sense. In the moment, you don't experience surrender. You experience a reasonable choice to save time, reduce effort, and leverage the expertise of others.

Surrender is invisible when it's dressed as pragmatism.

You can understand exactly how mindjacking works and still fall for it—because it exploits the gap between understanding and action. Knowing what you should do isn't the same as doing it.

Knowing is not doing.

This Predates Technology

At this point, you might be tempted to blame your phone. Delete the apps. Go offline. Detox from the algorithms.

It won't work—because mindjacking didn't start with your smartphone.

Schools taught you that questions have correct answers and someone else knows them. Twelve years of education can pass without a single assignment that asks, "What do you conclude, and why?" The skill being measured isn't thinking—it's identifying which answer the authority wants.

News delivered conclusions, not evidence. Marketing spent over a trillion dollars last year shaping desires you think are your own. Politics taught you that every issue has two sides, your side is right, and evaluating the other side's arguments is disloyalty.

These systems were capturing thinking long before social media existed. Technology accelerates the pattern. It didn't create it.

Which means the solution isn't a digital detox or a news blackout. The solution is rebuilding skills that have been atrophying for decades.

Reclaiming Your Thinking

Mindjacking is comfortable. Thinking for yourself is not.

Evaluation takes effort. Judgment takes time. Sitting with uncertainty feels worse than grabbing someone else's answer. Dissenting from consensus risks rejection. Changing your mind threatens your identity.

Every system around you is optimized to make outsourcing feel like the right choice.

Reclaiming your thinking means choosing the harder path. Not always. Not on everything. But on the decisions and evaluations that actually matter.

It means catching yourself in the moment of surrender—the moment you reach for the search bar instead of sitting with the question, the moment you look for consensus instead of forming judgment, the moment you defer to the expert instead of examining the evidence yourself.

It means tolerating the discomfort of not knowing, long enough to know for yourself.

It means asking one question, often: Am I thinking? Or am I borrowing someone else's thinking and calling it my own?

That question is the interrupt.

The Choice

Two paths forward.

On one path, the erosion continues. Your ability to evaluate keeps weakening. Your ability to decide keeps atrophying. The systems that benefit from your dependency keep optimizing. You become more efficient at locating other people's answers—and less capable of generating your own.

On the other path, something reverses. You notice the surrenders before they happen. You build tolerance for uncertainty. You develop the capacity to act on your own judgment.

You become harder to manipulate.

The systems won't change. They're doing exactly what they're designed to do.

The question is what you do in response.

Phil McKinney has spent four decades studying how people think, decide, and innovate—as an entrepreneur who took a company to IPO, as a Fortune 500 CTO who led teams to three consecutive "Most Innovative Company" awards, and as an advisor to leaders navigating high-stakes decisions. His work on thinking independence is the focus of his upcoming book. He writes weekly at Studio Notes and hosts the Thinking 101 series.

Sources

Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J. C., and Yap, A. J. "Power Posing: Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk Tolerance." Psychological Science 21, no. 10 (2010). Co-author Dana Carney publicly disowned the research in 2016.

Dahmani, L. and Bohbot, V. D. "Habitual use of GPS negatively impacts spatial memory during self-guided navigation." Scientific Reports 10, 6310 (2020). McGill University longitudinal study tracking drivers over three years.

Fischhoff, B. "Debiasing." In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (Eds.), Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (pp. 422-444). Cambridge University Press (1982). Foundational research on why teaching about biases fails to reduce susceptibility.

Gerlich, M. "AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking." Societies 15, no. 1 (January 2025). Study of 666 UK participants examining AI tool usage and critical thinking abilities.

Kosmyna, N., et al. "Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt." MIT Media Lab (2025). Electroencephalography study comparing brain activity across AI users, search engine users, and brain-only control groups.

Lee, H. P., et al. "The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking." Microsoft Research and Carnegie Mellon University (2025). Study of 319 knowledge workers analyzing 936 real workplace tasks.

Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., and Landfield, K. "Giving Debiasing Away: Can Psychological Research on Correcting Cognitive Errors Promote Human Welfare?" Perspectives on Psychological Science 4, no. 4 (2009). Review of debiasing research and barriers to real-world effectiveness.

WARC. "Global Ad Spend Outlook 2024/25." Global advertising spending reached $1.07 trillion in 2024.