3 ms·

If they're trying to get something and are willing to screw others over for it, then you have to give them an easier way to get what they want. Maybe they actua

If they're trying to get something and are willing to screw others over for it, then you have to give them an easier way to get what they want. Maybe they actually want something else? Or maybe they can get the thing some less damaging way? If that all fails then you have to find other strings to pull. Figure out what currencies they care about (think social pressure) and see how you might be able to use them to help you make your case.

AstralStorm 10y ago
How Machiavelian. We're talking about people, not things. People are often inconsistent. You cannot reduce them to a simple stratagem without a risk of total mistake.
- munchbunny 10y ago
  I didn't suggest a simple strategem, I suggested a way of thinking about how to dissuade someone who is willing to burn you or things or people you care about to gain something. How you implement what I said will vary from person to person. It can be Machiavellian if you're a student of the Jack Bauer school of persuasion, but for normal people it's just negotiation. Everybody has that ledger in their head when they make a decision but what's on that ledger can vary dramatically. If you want to both dissuade an irrational actor and keeping things civil, then you need to figure out what's on that ledger and whether you have a way of adjusting those items, maybe by offering a more palatable (to you) alternative, or by changing the perception of the costs/benefits, or by actually changing the costs/benefits, and so on.
  - orsenthil 10y ago
    The particular family member that I mention, did not come for any negotiation. They wanted to have something irrespective of the cost (even at the cost of health) to others in the family. It was a failed argument that I saw when rationalization was not helpful for my families welfare. I could not take it law either, as law does not cover many family scenarios.

AstralStorm 10y ago

How Machiavelian. We're talking about people, not things. People are often inconsistent. You cannot reduce them to a simple stratagem without a risk of total mistake.

munchbunny 10y ago
I didn't suggest a simple strategem, I suggested a way of thinking about how to dissuade someone who is willing to burn you or things or people you care about to gain something. How you implement what I said will vary from person to person. It can be Machiavellian if you're a student of the Jack Bauer school of persuasion, but for normal people it's just negotiation. Everybody has that ledger in their head when they make a decision but what's on that ledger can vary dramatically. If you want to both dissuade an irrational actor and keeping things civil, then you need to figure out what's on that ledger and whether you have a way of adjusting those items, maybe by offering a more palatable (to you) alternative, or by changing the perception of the costs/benefits, or by actually changing the costs/benefits, and so on.
- orsenthil 10y ago
  The particular family member that I mention, did not come for any negotiation. They wanted to have something irrespective of the cost (even at the cost of health) to others in the family. It was a failed argument that I saw when rationalization was not helpful for my families welfare. I could not take it law either, as law does not cover many family scenarios.