6 ms·

You're projecting and/or reading meaning that isn't there. Most of us congregate to learn and open our minds. A small percentage come to prey on others. This is

by PieterH 11y ago

You're projecting and/or reading meaning that isn't there. Most of us congregate to learn and open our minds. A small percentage come to prey on others. This is just how it is, no good or bad. My book The Psychopath Code (http://psychopathcode.com http://psychopathcode.com) makes it quite clear I don't consider psychopaths as enemy or bad guys. It's much more fun than that.

stefantalpalaru 11y ago
> Most of us congregate to learn and open our minds. So not to feel safe and protected, like when we were children? > I don't consider psychopaths as enemy or bad guys But you consider them "bad actors". Furthermore, you simplified everything by declaring that every unsavory character suffers from the same pseudo-psychiatric pathology. And you're supposed to be an authority on the matter because you wrote a book?
- PieterH 11y ago
  Feeling safe and learning aren't exclusive. The term "bad actor" is widely accepted and understood. If you have a better term, I'm all ears. The term is accurate when seen from the perspective of the majority, which is the perspective I'm taking in this article. As for my authority, no, all I can say is I've studied this dynamic in depth for many years and have a lot of good data on it, and tools that work. You're free to use those tools, ignore them, etc. And it's not a pathology. It is something far more profound than that. If you're interested, and perhaps you are, read just the first chapter of that book (the PDF is free to download).
- nailer 11y ago
  > bad actors That's a common infosec term. Eg: http://www.csoonline.com/article/2124416/malware-cybercrime/bad-actors-exposed--mccolo--zlkon--hostfresh-and-the-damage-done.html http://www.csoonline.com/article/2124416/malware-cybercrime/...
  - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
    It is. You still can't say that "bad actors" are not bad.
    - PieterH 11y ago
      I can, and do. "Bad actor" is a term. "Bad" is an adjective. It's like saying "apple" and "pine apple" must be the same fruit. We're smart enough to give different meanings to the same word, in different contexts. Bad actors act in a specific way that we can observe, model, understand, and predict. This is independent of perspective. "Bad" is a moral judgement that only exists in the head of the target. A beetle parasite of an ant colony is a "bad actor." It is not "bad."
      - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
        > It's like saying "apple" and "pine apple" must be the same fruit. No, it's like saying that a "bad apple" is not necessarily bad.
        PieterH 11y ago
        If you're making cider, then a "bad apple" is essential. I'm not making this up as I go along. Almost four years ago I wrote (http://hintjens.com/blog:18 http://hintjens.com/blog:18) "The Economics of Evil" explaining why bad actors (I used "bad guy" in that post) were necessary (so "good" overall). Nothing radical here. Predators are bad for individual prey animals yet essential for the health of the prey species. I'm curious what you are trying to argue here because while this is interesting stuff, it seems quite random.
chippy 11y ago
>Most of us congregate to learn and open our minds. >A small percentage come to prey on others. I think you would agree that here you are excluding the majority ("most of us") from a minority (a small percentage") of predators. > This is just how it is, no good or bad. This is thus a contradiction. You state that most people are good and some people are bad. I would suggest that there is indeed "no good or bad" but that it not "just how it is". Rather the same people who contribute, have worth, and are open to learning and collaborating may also have the bad behaviours.
- PieterH 11y ago
  Yes, and in my article I state that: "The second problem with exclusion of supposed bad actors is that it is prejudicial. Even bad actors add to the diversity of a crowd." The term is there, I'll change it if anyone has a better one. Edit: in my experience, the same motives that drive people to be bad actors makes them poor, even toxic, at collaboration.
  - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
    > in my experience, the same motives that drive people to be bad actors makes them poor, even toxic, at collaboration Toxicity can kill. You still don't see how you're being a bully by exaggerating the effects on community of people you don't like? I'd rather deal with the genuinely obnoxious, than with the entitled amateur policeman that can kick people out by pointing some item on a list. I'll even tolerate bullies like you, if you're not given any administrative power over the rest of us. You want to organize your own little tea party, on your own terms? Do it in your own "safe space conference" instead of hijacking the technical ones.
    - PieterH 11y ago
      So how long have you used this style of argument on line? Is it a habitual thing, or are you just emotional right now?
      - 11y ago

by PieterH 11y ago

stefantalpalaru 11y ago

> Most of us congregate to learn and open our minds. So not to feel safe and protected, like when we were children? > I don't consider psychopaths as enemy or bad guys But you consider them "bad actors". Furthermore, you simplified everything by declaring that every unsavory character suffers from the same pseudo-psychiatric pathology. And you're supposed to be an authority on the matter because you wrote a book?

PieterH 11y ago
Feeling safe and learning aren't exclusive. The term "bad actor" is widely accepted and understood. If you have a better term, I'm all ears. The term is accurate when seen from the perspective of the majority, which is the perspective I'm taking in this article. As for my authority, no, all I can say is I've studied this dynamic in depth for many years and have a lot of good data on it, and tools that work. You're free to use those tools, ignore them, etc. And it's not a pathology. It is something far more profound than that. If you're interested, and perhaps you are, read just the first chapter of that book (the PDF is free to download).
nailer 11y ago
> bad actors That's a common infosec term. Eg: http://www.csoonline.com/article/2124416/malware-cybercrime/bad-actors-exposed--mccolo--zlkon--hostfresh-and-the-damage-done.html http://www.csoonline.com/article/2124416/malware-cybercrime/...
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  It is. You still can't say that "bad actors" are not bad.
  - PieterH 11y ago
    I can, and do. "Bad actor" is a term. "Bad" is an adjective. It's like saying "apple" and "pine apple" must be the same fruit. We're smart enough to give different meanings to the same word, in different contexts. Bad actors act in a specific way that we can observe, model, understand, and predict. This is independent of perspective. "Bad" is a moral judgement that only exists in the head of the target. A beetle parasite of an ant colony is a "bad actor." It is not "bad."
    - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
      > It's like saying "apple" and "pine apple" must be the same fruit. No, it's like saying that a "bad apple" is not necessarily bad.
      - PieterH 11y ago
        If you're making cider, then a "bad apple" is essential. I'm not making this up as I go along. Almost four years ago I wrote (http://hintjens.com/blog:18 http://hintjens.com/blog:18) "The Economics of Evil" explaining why bad actors (I used "bad guy" in that post) were necessary (so "good" overall). Nothing radical here. Predators are bad for individual prey animals yet essential for the health of the prey species. I'm curious what you are trying to argue here because while this is interesting stuff, it seems quite random.

chippy 11y ago

>Most of us congregate to learn and open our minds. >A small percentage come to prey on others. I think you would agree that here you are excluding the majority ("most of us") from a minority (a small percentage") of predators. > This is just how it is, no good or bad. This is thus a contradiction. You state that most people are good and some people are bad. I would suggest that there is indeed "no good or bad" but that it not "just how it is". Rather the same people who contribute, have worth, and are open to learning and collaborating may also have the bad behaviours.

PieterH 11y ago
Yes, and in my article I state that: "The second problem with exclusion of supposed bad actors is that it is prejudicial. Even bad actors add to the diversity of a crowd." The term is there, I'll change it if anyone has a better one. Edit: in my experience, the same motives that drive people to be bad actors makes them poor, even toxic, at collaboration.
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  > in my experience, the same motives that drive people to be bad actors makes them poor, even toxic, at collaboration Toxicity can kill. You still don't see how you're being a bully by exaggerating the effects on community of people you don't like? I'd rather deal with the genuinely obnoxious, than with the entitled amateur policeman that can kick people out by pointing some item on a list. I'll even tolerate bullies like you, if you're not given any administrative power over the rest of us. You want to organize your own little tea party, on your own terms? Do it in your own "safe space conference" instead of hijacking the technical ones.
  - PieterH 11y ago
    So how long have you used this style of argument on line? Is it a habitual thing, or are you just emotional right now?
    - 11y ago