Law 27 Play on people’s need to believe to create a cultlike following.
A problem with knowing about such ‘laws’ is that you’ll start perceiving false positives in other people and will hate them for using those techniques against you.
A problem with knowing about such ‘laws’ is that you’ll start perceiving false positives in other people and will hate them for using those techniques against you.
I don’t consider the willful maintenance of false illusions to be sustainable way of securing oneself against disillusionment.
I note that if you start hating foks for using those techniques against you then you are probably already ignoring Greene’s advice. He consistently advises against taking things personally while also describing just how ‘hating people for doing X’ is itself a manipulative technique for gaining power.
I don’t think that I understand everything that you’re saying.
you’ll start perceiving false positives in other people
This is a valid concern, but I’m not sure how it relates to this:
and will hate them for using those techniques against you.
Regardless of whether you are vulnerable to such techniques, I don’t see why hearing arguments for their existence would harm you. (I can see that it would be a waste of time if they turned out to be useless, but from what little I’ve read of him, it would be a mistake to gamble on the hypothesis that they will be useless by not reading him at all.)
I said it is a problem, a potential bias that needs be to countered. It was not my intention to suggest that one shouldn’t learn about unethical persuasion techniques or the like. I actually ordered the book.
A few times I was accused of, and saw people on LW accusing others of using some kind of ‘forbidden’ rhetoric against them while I never even heard about such a technique before and which I was sure the person who has been accused never intended to deploy deliberately. This shines a bad light on people who have been accused. The right way would be to kindly remind them of the shortcomings of their argument or that their style of response might be harmful in a discussion with the purpose of dissolving confusion, refining rationality or understanding disagreement.
Really? From what I’ve read of Greene’s books (while I was stayed in “User:”Cosmos’s room in NYC...), his general format seems to be:
1) Give gripping narrative of historical event. 2) Shoehorn the event to use as validation for some vaguely-specified “law” (“Don’t be afraid”, “act covertly”, etc.)
EDIT: And that can probably be expanded to:
3) When you have enough of these, combine them into a book. 4) In response to popularity, generate new books, scraping bottom of barrel as necessary.
Dorikka already mentioned reading through Robin Hanson’s posts on status. In terms of ‘Shoehorning’, if he can stomach Hanson I expect him to consider Greene altogether benign.
Robert Greene—The 48 Laws of Power. About the same level of cynicism as Hanson but more instructional. Very entertaining. :)
A problem with knowing about such ‘laws’ is that you’ll start perceiving false positives in other people and will hate them for using those techniques against you.
I don’t consider the willful maintenance of false illusions to be sustainable way of securing oneself against disillusionment.
I note that if you start hating foks for using those techniques against you then you are probably already ignoring Greene’s advice. He consistently advises against taking things personally while also describing just how ‘hating people for doing X’ is itself a manipulative technique for gaining power.
I don’t think that I understand everything that you’re saying.
This is a valid concern, but I’m not sure how it relates to this:
Regardless of whether you are vulnerable to such techniques, I don’t see why hearing arguments for their existence would harm you. (I can see that it would be a waste of time if they turned out to be useless, but from what little I’ve read of him, it would be a mistake to gamble on the hypothesis that they will be useless by not reading him at all.)
I said it is a problem, a potential bias that needs be to countered. It was not my intention to suggest that one shouldn’t learn about unethical persuasion techniques or the like. I actually ordered the book.
A few times I was accused of, and saw people on LW accusing others of using some kind of ‘forbidden’ rhetoric against them while I never even heard about such a technique before and which I was sure the person who has been accused never intended to deploy deliberately. This shines a bad light on people who have been accused. The right way would be to kindly remind them of the shortcomings of their argument or that their style of response might be harmful in a discussion with the purpose of dissolving confusion, refining rationality or understanding disagreement.
Really? From what I’ve read of Greene’s books (while I was stayed in “User:”Cosmos’s room in NYC...), his general format seems to be:
1) Give gripping narrative of historical event.
2) Shoehorn the event to use as validation for some vaguely-specified “law” (“Don’t be afraid”, “act covertly”, etc.)
EDIT: And that can probably be expanded to:
3) When you have enough of these, combine them into a book.
4) In response to popularity, generate new books, scraping bottom of barrel as necessary.
Dorikka already mentioned reading through Robin Hanson’s posts on status. In terms of ‘Shoehorning’, if he can stomach Hanson I expect him to consider Greene altogether benign.