It’s tempting to attack back: Don’t. You’re going to escalate the situation, and escalation is going to favor the person who is better at this; worse, in a public Dark Arts battle, even the better person is going to take some hits. Nobody wins.
That’s not really true. Julian Blanc is a good example. He made the decision that it’s useful to be world famous and it doesn’t matter much what you are famous for. Then he did provocative things and contacted reporters.
Afterwards he got attacked. He became world famous and his sales increased.
In Antifragile Nassim Taleb claims that one of the reasons Ayn Rand has the influence she has on US culture because she managed to get viciously attacked by a lot of people.
If you’re accused of something, admit to the weakest and least harmful version of that which is true (be specific, and deny as necessary), and say you’re aware of your problem and working on improving.
I’m not seeing a point of that advice. In a public controversy it means that journalists can write articles about how you admited to a weak version but didn’t fully admit to the wrong doing and call on you to admit to a stronger version.
I don’t think you need to engage actively in dark arts to be antifragile against a reputational attack. Believing that both sides always lose isn’t useful.
“Do not stand out.” is advice that often does reduce the capability to defend yourself. The Chinese government doesn’t disappear Ai Weiwei because he has a public profile and stands out. Less public dissidents have a worse fate in China.
Believing that both sides always lose isn’t useful.
That isn’t what I wrote.
The Chinese government doesn’t disappear Ai Weiwei because he has a public profile and stands out. Less public dissidents have a worse fate in China.
Ai Weiwei followed rule #2; he made himself a dangerous person to target. [ETA]He’ll be in serious trouble, however, if somebody decides they want to make a very public example, because he’s exceptionally public.[/ETA] The less public dissidents both stand out, and aren’t dangerous to target. The least public dissidents aren’t recognized enough to target in the first place.
You’re going to escalate the situation, and escalation is going to favor the person who is better at this; worse, in a public Dark Arts battle, even the better person is going to take some hits. Nobody wins.
If you don’t mean both parties lose, what does “Nobody wins” mean?
The less public dissidents both stand out, and aren’t dangerous to target. The least public dissidents aren’t recognized enough to target in the first place.
It’s much easier to attack a homosexual who’s in the closet for his homosexuality than to attack a homosexual that’s open about his sexuality. The same goes for many domains. Openness is often useful for having a defensible position and it does mean standing out.
If you don’t mean both parties lose, what does “Nobody wins” mean?
Your claim is specifically that I wrote that “both sides always lose”. First, mind Rule #0, it trumps all other rules, and explicitly states that the advice can be wrong in any given situation. But beyond that, I didn’t write that both sides always lose, I wrote that nobody wins IF you escalate the situation.
It’s much easier to attack a homosexual who’s in the closet for his homosexuality than to attack a homosexual that’s open about his sexuality. The same goes for many domains. Openness is often useful for having a defensible position and it does mean standing out.
False. I can stand out without being open, and I can be open without standing out.
Your claim is specifically that I wrote that “both sides always lose”.
No, my claim was that you believe: “both sides always lose”. To be exact my claim was even weaker. I claimed that it’s not useful to believe “both sides always lose” without directly saying that you hold that belief.
First, mind Rule #0, it trumps all other rules, and explicitly states that the advice can be wrong in any given situation.
Yes, but you don’t explain in your article the reasons behind your other rules to allow someone who hasn’t already thought about the topics to know when to follow your advise.
I think that for people in our community it makes more sense to want to be antifragile than trying to follow the maxi of “Do not stand out”.
Advice has to be judged by the likely effect of someone trying to follow the advise.
When you say “be specific” when admitting wrongdoing you do reguritate knowledge that’s widely accepted but you don’t explain at all why it makes sense to be specific. You don’t talk about how you can raise the complex of the story by being specific and thus make it harder for your audience to wrap their head around the story.
No, my claim was that you believe: “both sides always lose”. To be exact my claim was even weaker. I claimed that it’s not useful to believe “both sides always lose” without directly saying that you hold that belief.
Ok. I’m going to call that some of the most noxious weasel-wording I’ve come across in a while, without directly saying that you are engaging in weasel-wording.
Yes, but you don’t explain in your article the reasons behind your other rules to allow someone who hasn’t already thought about the topics to know when to follow your advise. I think that for people in our community it makes more sense to want to be antifragile than trying to follow the maxi of “Do not stand out”.
Antifragility requires personality traits that can’t be readily learned, most important among them not caring what other people think about you.
When you say “be specific” when admitting wrongdoing you do reguritate knowledge that’s widely accepted but you don’t explain at all why it makes sense to be specific. You don’t talk about how you can raise the complex of the story by being specific and thus make it harder for your audience to wrap their head around the story.
That’s not the idea at all. The idea isn’t to confuse your audience, the idea is to limit what your admission can be said to be admitting to.
Ok. I’m going to call that some of the most noxious weasel-wording I’ve come across in a while, without directly saying that you are engaging in weasel-wording.
You are still wrong. I didn’t write “you wrote both sides always lose” and I didn’t meant to express that sentiment.
Antifragility requires personality traits that can’t be readily learned, most important among them not caring what other people think about you.
It can’t be learned by following ten simple rules but that doesn’t mean that the philosophy can’t be learned.
That’s not the idea at all. The idea isn’t to confuse your audience, the idea is to limit what your admission can be said to be admitting to.
Confusing isn’t the right word but I have spoken to a politician who actually cares about reputation fights and they did consider raising complexity of the story to be part of the goal of adding a lot of details (being specific).
To me what you write sounds like it’s ivory tower thinking based on reading classics like Sun Tzu. I have read Sun Tzu but I also dealt seriously with the topic outside the ivory tower.
It can’t be learned by following ten simple rules but that doesn’t mean that the philosophy can’t be learned.
I don’t think the philosophy -can- be learned, not by normal people. Not caring what other people think of you runs pretty deep.
Confusing isn’t the right word but I have spoken to a politician who actually cares about reputation fights and they did consider raising complexity of the story to be part of the goal of adding a lot of details (being specific).
That is… situationally, good advice. There’s considerable complexity to when it would be good advice, however, and misapplied or poorly implemented, you’re going to be read as trying to cover over a lie, as that is a well-recognized tactic used by liars. I wouldn’t give that advice to somebody who needed it.
To me what you write sounds like it’s ivory tower thinking based on reading classics like Sun Tzu. I have read Sun Tzu but I also dealt seriously with the topic outside the ivory tower.
It is, to some extent, ivory tower thinking, in something the same way instructions on how to replace a doorframe are ivory tower thinking. Once you get into the real thing, and discover that you have a custom-built frame, or that for some bizarre reason there’s plumbing running through the door jam, the instructions become more like general guidelines you refer to and keep in mind as you navigate the complexities of the specific situation at hand.
I don’t think the philosophy -can- be learned, not by normal people.
There aren’t many normal people on LW. Many people here care about truth enough to leave Christianity at the cost of their family thinking badly about them.
That doesn’t mean that reputation doesn’t matter, but it’s worthwhile to understand where you make which trades. It’s worth to be clear about who you want to impress and who you don’t care to impress.
That the road you go to becoming antifragile.
As far as changing things that run deep, I have spent enough time with NLP trained people to know that those can be changed. Most people in the local NLP community in Berlin manage the relevant personality change. NLP doesn’t to everything but as far as I observe it can change this parameter pretty reliably
That is… situationally, good advice. There’s considerable complexity to when it would be good advice, however, and misapplied or poorly implemented
Yes, that’s why it’s useless to simple tell people to “be specific” the way you do above.
I wouldn’t give that advice to somebody who needed it.
Actually you did give the advice to “be specific” which is what the complaint is about.
It is, to some extent, ivory tower thinking, in something the same way instructions on how to replace a doorframe are ivory tower thinking.
When taking advice on how to replace a doorframe I would seek it from people who actually have had experience with replacing doorframes and not from people who haven’t. Guildelines on doorframe replacement by ivory tower folks are suboptimal.
That’s not really true. Julian Blanc is a good example. He made the decision that it’s useful to be world famous and it doesn’t matter much what you are famous for. Then he did provocative things and contacted reporters. Afterwards he got attacked. He became world famous and his sales increased.
He backed down and issued public apologies, and has gone considerably quieter since then. Doesn’t seem to me that he ended up where he wanted to.
In Antifragile Nassim Taleb claims that one of the reasons Ayn Rand has the influence she has on US culture because she managed to get viciously attacked by a lot of people.
You might want to observe how she responded to attacks, as well.
I’m not seeing a point of that advice. In a public controversy it means that journalists can write articles about how you admited to a weak version but didn’t fully admit to the wrong doing and call on you to admit to a stronger version.
They wouldn’t, for three reasons. First, by admitting to a weak version, you cut off the central controversy, making it no longer newsworthy. Second, by attacking somebody with an admitted problem, they look like aggressors going after a victim. Third, they feel like they’ve already won.
I’m not seeing a point of that advice. In a public controversy it means that journalists can write articles about how you admited to a weak version but didn’t fully admit to the wrong doing and call on you to admit to a stronger version.
They wouldn’t, for three reasons.
They will and have. Look what happened to Larry Summers, Brendan Eich, or James Watson. In all cases issuing an apology didn’t help them and lead directly to resignations. Heck look at the reaction of the University protestors to admissions of guild and apologies on the part of university administrators. Heck look who Christakis’s apology failed to stop the events.
They will and have. Look what happened to Larry Summers, Brendan Eich, or James Watson. In all cases issuing an apology didn’t help them and lead directly to resignations. Heck look at the reaction of the University protestors to admissions of guild and apologies on the part of university administrators. Heck look who Christakis’s apology failed to stop the events.
Ah. I see.
I’m not advocating an apology; that is playing the game according to the rules your opponents have set. I’m advocating -redefining- the game by changing what it is you have to apologize for. An example that is now recognized as such, and thus is no longer useful, is apologizing for the way what you said was received.
He backed down and issued public apologies, and has gone considerably quieter since then. Doesn’t seem to me that he ended up where he wanted to.
It was advantagous for him to issue a public apology but that doesn’t mean that the affair damaged him and that he isn’t better of them at the start.
They wouldn’t, for three reasons. First, by admitting to a weak version, you cut off the central controversy, making it no longer newsworthy. Second, by attacking somebody with an admitted problem, they look like aggressors going after a victim. Third, they feel like they’ve already won.
You ignore a few things about the press:
(1) People like reading stories that evolve. Journalists like to provide those stories to them. The desire to read how a story progresses makes people buy a new newspaper.
With online media it’s a bit different but even there jouranlists want to advance stories.
(2) Most of the time the actors in the interaction care but many issues besides the actual conflict.
It was advantagous for him to issue a public apology but that doesn’t mean that the affair damaged him and that he isn’t better of them at the start.
I wouldn’t regard him as better off, and I have serious doubts he regards himself as better off, but we can disagree there. At any rate, he’s not actually a useful counterexample, since he wasn’t defending against attacks, but provoking them, and then responding… pretty much exactly according to the script. (Violated the hell out of Rule 1, though.)
People like reading stories that evolve. Journalists like to provide those stories to them. The desire to read how a story progresses makes people buy a new newspaper. With online media it’s a bit different but even there jouranlists want to advance stories.
That might have been true twenty years ago. People’s attention spans don’t support that now. Even when it was true, however, the quick capitulation prevents evolution of the story. That’s why that particular rule calls for -immediate- surrender; if you take a week to respond, you’re dragging the story out and sustaining interest.
Most of the time the actors in the interaction care but many issues besides the actual conflict.
Yes. That’s one of the other critical reasons for immediate capitulation; you prevent your own side from needing to throw in on your side and -create- a controversy. If nobody is arguing about it, everybody’s attention moves on.
No, they aren’t, but most people won’t be able to tell the difference.
I think in most cases your opponent is able to tell that you didn’t capitulated to them. There’s the saying that if you give someone a finger they take the whole hand.
That’s not really true. Julian Blanc is a good example. He made the decision that it’s useful to be world famous and it doesn’t matter much what you are famous for. Then he did provocative things and contacted reporters. Afterwards he got attacked. He became world famous and his sales increased.
In Antifragile Nassim Taleb claims that one of the reasons Ayn Rand has the influence she has on US culture because she managed to get viciously attacked by a lot of people.
I’m not seeing a point of that advice. In a public controversy it means that journalists can write articles about how you admited to a weak version but didn’t fully admit to the wrong doing and call on you to admit to a stronger version.
I don’t think this advice was aimed at people who immerse themselves in the dark arts.
I don’t think you need to engage actively in dark arts to be antifragile against a reputational attack. Believing that both sides always lose isn’t useful.
“Do not stand out.” is advice that often does reduce the capability to defend yourself. The Chinese government doesn’t disappear Ai Weiwei because he has a public profile and stands out. Less public dissidents have a worse fate in China.
I would probably formulate Rule #1 as “Do not be an identifiable target” (“the ideal form is to be formless”).
That isn’t what I wrote.
Ai Weiwei followed rule #2; he made himself a dangerous person to target. [ETA]He’ll be in serious trouble, however, if somebody decides they want to make a very public example, because he’s exceptionally public.[/ETA] The less public dissidents both stand out, and aren’t dangerous to target. The least public dissidents aren’t recognized enough to target in the first place.
You wrote:
If you don’t mean both parties lose, what does “Nobody wins” mean?
It’s much easier to attack a homosexual who’s in the closet for his homosexuality than to attack a homosexual that’s open about his sexuality. The same goes for many domains. Openness is often useful for having a defensible position and it does mean standing out.
Your claim is specifically that I wrote that “both sides always lose”. First, mind Rule #0, it trumps all other rules, and explicitly states that the advice can be wrong in any given situation. But beyond that, I didn’t write that both sides always lose, I wrote that nobody wins IF you escalate the situation.
False. I can stand out without being open, and I can be open without standing out.
No, my claim was that you believe: “both sides always lose”. To be exact my claim was even weaker. I claimed that it’s not useful to believe “both sides always lose” without directly saying that you hold that belief.
Yes, but you don’t explain in your article the reasons behind your other rules to allow someone who hasn’t already thought about the topics to know when to follow your advise. I think that for people in our community it makes more sense to want to be antifragile than trying to follow the maxi of “Do not stand out”.
Advice has to be judged by the likely effect of someone trying to follow the advise.
When you say “be specific” when admitting wrongdoing you do reguritate knowledge that’s widely accepted but you don’t explain at all why it makes sense to be specific. You don’t talk about how you can raise the complex of the story by being specific and thus make it harder for your audience to wrap their head around the story.
Ok. I’m going to call that some of the most noxious weasel-wording I’ve come across in a while, without directly saying that you are engaging in weasel-wording.
Antifragility requires personality traits that can’t be readily learned, most important among them not caring what other people think about you.
That’s not the idea at all. The idea isn’t to confuse your audience, the idea is to limit what your admission can be said to be admitting to.
You are still wrong. I didn’t write “you wrote both sides always lose” and I didn’t meant to express that sentiment.
It can’t be learned by following ten simple rules but that doesn’t mean that the philosophy can’t be learned.
Confusing isn’t the right word but I have spoken to a politician who actually cares about reputation fights and they did consider raising complexity of the story to be part of the goal of adding a lot of details (being specific).
To me what you write sounds like it’s ivory tower thinking based on reading classics like Sun Tzu. I have read Sun Tzu but I also dealt seriously with the topic outside the ivory tower.
I don’t think the philosophy -can- be learned, not by normal people. Not caring what other people think of you runs pretty deep.
That is… situationally, good advice. There’s considerable complexity to when it would be good advice, however, and misapplied or poorly implemented, you’re going to be read as trying to cover over a lie, as that is a well-recognized tactic used by liars. I wouldn’t give that advice to somebody who needed it.
It is, to some extent, ivory tower thinking, in something the same way instructions on how to replace a doorframe are ivory tower thinking. Once you get into the real thing, and discover that you have a custom-built frame, or that for some bizarre reason there’s plumbing running through the door jam, the instructions become more like general guidelines you refer to and keep in mind as you navigate the complexities of the specific situation at hand.
There aren’t many normal people on LW. Many people here care about truth enough to leave Christianity at the cost of their family thinking badly about them. That doesn’t mean that reputation doesn’t matter, but it’s worthwhile to understand where you make which trades. It’s worth to be clear about who you want to impress and who you don’t care to impress.
That the road you go to becoming antifragile.
As far as changing things that run deep, I have spent enough time with NLP trained people to know that those can be changed. Most people in the local NLP community in Berlin manage the relevant personality change. NLP doesn’t to everything but as far as I observe it can change this parameter pretty reliably
Yes, that’s why it’s useless to simple tell people to “be specific” the way you do above.
Actually you did give the advice to “be specific” which is what the complaint is about.
When taking advice on how to replace a doorframe I would seek it from people who actually have had experience with replacing doorframes and not from people who haven’t. Guildelines on doorframe replacement by ivory tower folks are suboptimal.
He backed down and issued public apologies, and has gone considerably quieter since then. Doesn’t seem to me that he ended up where he wanted to.
You might want to observe how she responded to attacks, as well.
They wouldn’t, for three reasons. First, by admitting to a weak version, you cut off the central controversy, making it no longer newsworthy. Second, by attacking somebody with an admitted problem, they look like aggressors going after a victim. Third, they feel like they’ve already won.
They will and have. Look what happened to Larry Summers, Brendan Eich, or James Watson. In all cases issuing an apology didn’t help them and lead directly to resignations. Heck look at the reaction of the University protestors to admissions of guild and apologies on the part of university administrators. Heck look who Christakis’s apology failed to stop the events.
Ah. I see.
I’m not advocating an apology; that is playing the game according to the rules your opponents have set. I’m advocating -redefining- the game by changing what it is you have to apologize for. An example that is now recognized as such, and thus is no longer useful, is apologizing for the way what you said was received.
The problem is that any apology is now recognized as such.
While I disagree, I still don’t advocate apologizing.
It was advantagous for him to issue a public apology but that doesn’t mean that the affair damaged him and that he isn’t better of them at the start.
You ignore a few things about the press:
(1) People like reading stories that evolve. Journalists like to provide those stories to them. The desire to read how a story progresses makes people buy a new newspaper. With online media it’s a bit different but even there jouranlists want to advance stories.
(2) Most of the time the actors in the interaction care but many issues besides the actual conflict.
I wouldn’t regard him as better off, and I have serious doubts he regards himself as better off, but we can disagree there. At any rate, he’s not actually a useful counterexample, since he wasn’t defending against attacks, but provoking them, and then responding… pretty much exactly according to the script. (Violated the hell out of Rule 1, though.)
That might have been true twenty years ago. People’s attention spans don’t support that now. Even when it was true, however, the quick capitulation prevents evolution of the story. That’s why that particular rule calls for -immediate- surrender; if you take a week to respond, you’re dragging the story out and sustaining interest.
Yes. That’s one of the other critical reasons for immediate capitulation; you prevent your own side from needing to throw in on your side and -create- a controversy. If nobody is arguing about it, everybody’s attention moves on.
Capitulation and admitting to a weak version of the charge aren’t the same thing.
No, they aren’t, but most people won’t be able to tell the difference.
I think in most cases your opponent is able to tell that you didn’t capitulated to them. There’s the saying that if you give someone a finger they take the whole hand.
Your opponent doesn’t matter. Your audience matters.