= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Dark Arts: Defense in Reputational Warfare - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (69)
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.