4 ms·

You’re bragging about being manipulative?

by runawaybottle 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bgutierrez 6y ago
No, he's explaining that acting responsible puts him in positions of responsibility.
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  Really? Because I think he broke it down into steps: Step 1: Become admin Step 2: Say there are too many admins now, redefine the requirements for admins to fit you Step 3: Stay admin, while others don’t qualify Huh? This is cool?
- pdonis 6y ago
  > he's explaining that acting responsible puts him in positions of responsibility It could be taken that way, but the problem is that the author deliberately puts it in terms that make that ambiguous. A much less ambiguous way to put it would have been: 1. Help out an existing admin by fixing something they care about fixing but are too busy to fix themselves. 2. Repeat step 1. enough times that there is general recognition in the organization that you can fix problems and will do so responsibly. 3. Approach the powers that be and point to your track record established in steps 1. and 2. as evidence that (a) another admin is needed to help carry the load, and (b) you are the right person for that job. 4. Get appointed as an admin. The author's process might be essentially the same as the above, but it might not; there are various signs in his writeup of the latter, that might be valid signs or might just be his whimsical way of speaking. And if his process isn't the same as the above, then he's doing more than just acting responsible and thereby earning positions of responsibility. Where the real divergence comes is this: "8. Make sure to keep helping out anyone who wants to fix problems with the system. If you become a roadblocker, you will allow someone else to do step #1 and you might lose your access when that person reaches step #6." Notice that in my steps 1. through 4. above, no existing admins get punted. So there's no need for someone who reaches my step 4. to take steps to prevent others from starting at my step 1. and working their way through the process. And someone who was genuinely concerned for the well-being of the organization would be open to the possibility that, just as the admins who were there before him weren't able to take care of all the problems, there might come a time when the admins including him might not be able to either.
oneiftwo 6y ago
I absolutely agree with this sentiment. It's why I had difficulty reading "how to win friends and influence people" despite how frequently and casually lauded it is. It's literally an instruction manual for using indirect methods of communication and influence to get people to do what you want. It's practically adtech for the self. Ignoring the dangers of having charismatic power over people, I don't know under what circumstances it is ethical to manipulate someone, and I certainly wouldn't brag openly about it.
- gowld 6y ago
  I don't see why people are intuitively manipulative deserve it more than people who study. Manipulation is a tool. How it is used it was matter.
  - runawaybottle 6y ago
    So let’s discuss how manipulation was used: > Declare that there are too many admins and that there needs to be a stricter policy to define who can be an admin. > Take it on yourself to define (or redefine) that policy and present it to the system owner in your organization. Make sure you fit the new definition and make sure that staple admins are also included. > No one remembers why you’re admin, but you’re setting the rules now so no one can dispute it. Victory! What are we even discussing here? This is such a indicator of bad character.
    - mehrdadn 6y ago
      I think some of it was tongue-in-cheek...
      - runawaybottle 6y ago
        Ah ok, well now I feel like a dumbass. But hey you never know, some sociopaths will totally write something like this.
      - pdonis 6y ago
dfine 6y ago
This is an instructive article for how to get a lot done to improve systems as a "utility knife" developer in a growing startup, but how to do it responsibly.

You’re bragging about being manipulative?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bgutierrez 6y ago

No, he's explaining that acting responsible puts him in positions of responsibility.

runawaybottle 6y ago
Really? Because I think he broke it down into steps: Step 1: Become admin Step 2: Say there are too many admins now, redefine the requirements for admins to fit you Step 3: Stay admin, while others don’t qualify Huh? This is cool?
pdonis 6y ago
> he's explaining that acting responsible puts him in positions of responsibility It could be taken that way, but the problem is that the author deliberately puts it in terms that make that ambiguous. A much less ambiguous way to put it would have been: 1. Help out an existing admin by fixing something they care about fixing but are too busy to fix themselves. 2. Repeat step 1. enough times that there is general recognition in the organization that you can fix problems and will do so responsibly. 3. Approach the powers that be and point to your track record established in steps 1. and 2. as evidence that (a) another admin is needed to help carry the load, and (b) you are the right person for that job. 4. Get appointed as an admin. The author's process might be essentially the same as the above, but it might not; there are various signs in his writeup of the latter, that might be valid signs or might just be his whimsical way of speaking. And if his process isn't the same as the above, then he's doing more than just acting responsible and thereby earning positions of responsibility. Where the real divergence comes is this: "8. Make sure to keep helping out anyone who wants to fix problems with the system. If you become a roadblocker, you will allow someone else to do step #1 and you might lose your access when that person reaches step #6." Notice that in my steps 1. through 4. above, no existing admins get punted. So there's no need for someone who reaches my step 4. to take steps to prevent others from starting at my step 1. and working their way through the process. And someone who was genuinely concerned for the well-being of the organization would be open to the possibility that, just as the admins who were there before him weren't able to take care of all the problems, there might come a time when the admins including him might not be able to either.

oneiftwo 6y ago

I absolutely agree with this sentiment. It's why I had difficulty reading "how to win friends and influence people" despite how frequently and casually lauded it is. It's literally an instruction manual for using indirect methods of communication and influence to get people to do what you want. It's practically adtech for the self. Ignoring the dangers of having charismatic power over people, I don't know under what circumstances it is ethical to manipulate someone, and I certainly wouldn't brag openly about it.

gowld 6y ago
I don't see why people are intuitively manipulative deserve it more than people who study. Manipulation is a tool. How it is used it was matter.
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  So let’s discuss how manipulation was used: > Declare that there are too many admins and that there needs to be a stricter policy to define who can be an admin. > Take it on yourself to define (or redefine) that policy and present it to the system owner in your organization. Make sure you fit the new definition and make sure that staple admins are also included. > No one remembers why you’re admin, but you’re setting the rules now so no one can dispute it. Victory! What are we even discussing here? This is such a indicator of bad character.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    I think some of it was tongue-in-cheek...
    - runawaybottle 6y ago
      Ah ok, well now I feel like a dumbass. But hey you never know, some sociopaths will totally write something like this.
    - pdonis 6y ago

dfine 6y ago

This is an instructive article for how to get a lot done to improve systems as a "utility knife" developer in a growing startup, but how to do it responsibly.