You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ChristianKl comments on Dark Arts: Defense in Reputational Warfare - Less Wrong Discussion

1 Post author: OrphanWilde 03 December 2015 03:03PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (69)

CC Licenced

Comments (69)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 December 2015 06:39:34PM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Lumifer 03 December 2015 08:41:52PM 3 points [-]

"Do not stand out." is advice that often does reduce the capability to defend yourself.

I would probably formulate Rule #1 as "Do not be an identifiable target" ("the ideal form is to be formless").

Comment author: OrphanWilde 03 December 2015 07:06:22PM * 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 December 2015 07:25:03PM * 2 points [-]

That isn't what I wrote.

You wrote:

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.

Comment author: OrphanWilde comment score below threshold [+] (5 children)

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 December 2015 11:53:47PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 04 December 2015 02:05:07PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: ChristianKl 04 December 2015 02:44:49PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 04 December 2015 03:08:52PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: ChristianKl 04 December 2015 03:42:51PM * 1 point [-]

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.

ChristianKl comments on Dark Arts: Defense in Reputational Warfare - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (69)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Open Threads

Recent Rationality Diaries

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (69)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login