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.

Comments (69)

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

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 December 2015 07:30:16PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 03 December 2015 07:48:31PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 December 2015 08:10:44PM 0 points [-]

Capitulation and admitting to a weak version of the charge aren't the same thing.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 03 December 2015 08:18:58PM -2 points [-]

No, they aren't, but most people won't be able to tell the difference.

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 December 2015 09:32:37PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 03 December 2015 09:50:40PM 0 points [-]

Your opponent doesn't matter. Your audience matters.