This article: theconversation.com - How ordinary people are convinced to become spies describes a concept known as MICE, an acronym for Money, Ideology, Coercion, and Ego
Another definition is as follows:
MICE
A mnemonic device used in counterintelligence training to remind trainees of the four general motivations that could lead someone to commit treason, become an insider threat, or collaborate with a hostile agency or organization.
In other words, 4 methods by which a person can be motivated to change their actions, or 4 weaknesses that can make a person vulnerable to being corrupted.
The 4 main motivators
- Money- E.g. a person in debt or poverty might be more vulnerable to being motivated to do something for an offer of money.
- Ideology- from the article: “Some people are willing to risk life and limb for their beliefs.”
- Coercion- a person can have leverage used against them
- Ego- from the article: “For some, espionage is an opportunity to secretly manipulate people around them and to prove their superiority.”
I’m posting this here in sort of a similar spirit as this post:
COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum.
I think the MICE concept is useful in the context of understanding human behavior in terms of corrupt acts, a person doings things that contradict what they apparently stand for. Although it seems to be a term that came from the intelligence community, I think it is useful in any context of human corruption.
For example, how a politician or a judge might get corrupted. Or how people working in the media or other relevant industries might become corrupted.
Financial actors with loads of money can and will find opportunities where they can: insiders at companies that could provide them with inside information, insiders at media organization that can help them control the narrative, insiders in political offices to help them write the rules, and so on.
For reasons that can mostly be reduced to these 4 motivators, as per Wikipedia, “corruption and crime are endemic sociological occurrences which appear with regular frequency in virtually all countries on a global scale in varying degrees and proportions.”
I really, really appreciate this post. Good stuff. It’s one of those things what I had kinda felt or sorta knew, but couldn’t or hadn’t tried to articulate (did I really know, then? maybe not).