Over 50 years ago, American fighter pilot and military strategist John Boyd invented the OODA loop—Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. Warfare inspired the idea, which is unexpectedly relevant to social media politics today.

Boyd believed that humans observe and “orient” before making a decision. Orientation matters. We interpret what we observe using our past experiences, beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge.

This thesis presents a critical question for young Indian voters today: What happens when someone influences our view of an issue before we decide?

As political parties and their strategy teams seek to use social media today to attract young voters, the role of universities and educators of all hues can be a fascinating subject of study.

Indian colleges should consider the issue. Politics always requires persuasion. Parties naturally want voters to perceive things their way. However, it would not be prudent to ask young people to avoid politics. In the age of social media, colleges should promote debate, political knowledge, and engagement.

Social media has altered persuasion speed and scale. The smartphone is a daily companion for most teenagers. Daily political messages come from Instagram reels, YouTube videos, memes, influencers, WhatsApp messages, truncated speeches, and short articles.

So it’s not only about young people having information. The broader concern is whether they comprehend how information is delivered, why they keep seeing it, and what it may be trying to convince them of.

Politics starts before voting

Agenda-setting was invented by communication scholars decades ago. Media may not always tell people what to think, but it can dramatically impact what they think.

People naturally think a problem is important if it keeps coming up. What follows is framing. The same event can be shown differently. A political party may call a policy welfare. Some call it needless spending. Some call protests democratic resistance, others disturbance.

The facts may persist. Frame shifts. This is stronger with social media. Over several days, a student can encounter memes, reels, comedian comments, short speeches, influencer opinions, and WhatsApp forwards with the same political message.

Each post need not state, “You must believe this.” But, repetition can shape later events’ perception.

This is where OODA applies. Political influence need not always drive your decision. Your orientation before the decision may be influenced. If one politician is displayed in flattering photos and another in embarrassing footage, our opinions may change. If we only witness one failure but rarely perceive the complexity, we may see the political situation through that lens. Even so, the final verdict can feel like ours.

Colleges must go beyond spotting “fake news”

Information can be accurate but misleading. Dividing media into “true” and “fake” is a major mistake in media education. Political communication is often more complex. The removal of speech from a 20-second video clip might make it seem real but misleading.

Correct statistics can be provided without context. Five real examples can be repeated while 20 are ignored. Rare events can be shown hundreds of times until they seem typical.

So manipulation doesn’t necessarily involve a lie. Selection, repetition, exaggeration, and omission can do it. False choice is another useful tactic. “You are with us or against us.”

“If you criticise this leader, support the other party.” “If you oppose this policy, you oppose this community.” “If one side is wrong, the other must be right.”

Politics rarely is this easy. But social media encourages simplicity. Nuance takes time. Anger takes seconds.

This is where education must help. Emotional political communication can persuade an engineer, MBA, or doctorate. Academic credentials do not guaranty independence.

How should colleges act?

Colleges should not advise kids which party to support. Teaching should not replace political propaganda with personal views. Education should make manipulation from the Left, Right, Center, or any other direction simpler to spot.

Here are seven steps that educators can embark on:

First, help kids distinguish fact from interpretation. Give them one political event from various newspapers, TV, and social media. Ask what everyone agrees happened. Ask about opinion, interpretation, and assumption. This single exercise can transform student news consumption.

Second, teach persuasion basics. Students should recognize emotional language, selected statistics, personal assaults, scapegoating, exaggeration, false choices, and repeated slogans. Once people know a strategy, it’s tougher to use surreptitiously.

Fourth, spot emotional bait. Political information typically incites anger, fear, pride, or insult. Emotion is not proof. A good student rule: Stronger emotional reactions warrant pause before sharing. Why is this post trying so hard to anger me?

Fifth, argue against yourself. Sometimes students should defend a stance they disagree with or uncover flaws in a powerful argument. This does not mean sacrificing values. It means comprehending another argument before rejecting it. A cornerstone of democratic thought.

Sixth, differentiate popularity from reality. A million views don’t prove anything. Ten thousand shares don’t reflect public opinion. Trending hashtags are not elections. Excitement, controversy, organised fans, or interesting content can boost social media presence. Students must understand statistics to discern evidence from popularity.

Finally, spot red flags. Be wary of political messaging with no source, overly edited videos, undated figures, treating entire communities as if they believe alike, continually calling opponents enemies, or insisting that anyone who questions the message must be on the other side. Content like this should raise questions, not emotions.

Colleges should generate ‘tough voters’

College graduates should be tough voters. Hard to scare. Hard to provoke. Hard to flatter. Hard to persuade by repetition. Open to counterarguments. Willing to check claims before sending.

Most importantly, they should be open to evidence-based viewpoint adjustments. Young people with strong political views are fine. Nationalism, social justice, economic policy, caste, welfare, federalism, language, jobs, environment, and identity should be discussed.

Politics matters to citizenship. Education must prevent political belief from becoming a digital feed response. Political parties will keep trying to shape people’s perceptions. When citizens understand the process, democracy works best.

Education is not to teach kids the “correct” political view, but rather to give them intellectual independence to ensure their ultimate opinion is their own. Our colleges should teach young Indians one crucial skill before teaching them to vote: ways to avoid someone else silently making the decision for you.