18 ms·

Shamelessness as a Strategy (2019)

188 points by etherio 6y ago

qznc 6y ago
As one hypothesis what has changed: Attention can be monetized (or weaponized) more easily today. I'd also question if this is actually that new. In medieval times, the court jester used a similar strategy to influence.
gonzo41 6y ago
As someone who has worked in sales for a Bank. I feel like the author is not aware that shamelessness has been a strategy for a long, long time.
- jnwatson 6y ago
  There's a different thing going on in corporate culture. Corporations can't feel shame, since they aren't alive. There's a certain amoral one-upmanship in corporate culture that's seemingly immune from any sort of shame defense. For example, someone inside Wells Fargo suggested that they could simply open new bank accounts for existing customers without telling them. If this were an individual moneychanger, they would be shamed by society for being dishonest. Even if individual employees can be shamed (and the best executives have long disabled that emotional response), the corporation can just replace those employees.
- Symmetry 6y ago
  Shame mostly exists within groups, it's much less of a thing for members of a group competing with other groups. Which of course hinges on where you draw your group identity boundaries.
mam2 6y ago
Surprising he mentions Paris Hilton but not Trump who did exactly that. The interesing question is why ? The answer is hypocrisy. When you have too much of "how you should behave" It doesn't connect with laypeople enough and so it blows up and laypeople like it so it becomes popular..
- oarsinsync 6y ago
  > Without getting into tiresome politics, the “shameless” strategy also defined the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. Presumably he’s aware naming the person by name will inflame the audience and derail the conversation in a way that Paris will not.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nailer 6y ago
  It's everyone. Yes that includes Trump, but also Kamala Harris who accused Biden of sexual harassment and then joined him as a running mate and the various people that engaged in the Russiagate conspiracy. There's no penalty to being wrong or being shown to be a hypocrite. The lie gets 40K retweets, the correction 300.
  - papito 6y ago
    The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
  - kskqkqk912 6y ago
    The part about Kamala Harris is factually incorrect. Please provide a source where she or one of her surrogates is quoted leveling this type of accusing at Biden.
    - Veen 6y ago
      She said, in reference to the women who alleged Biden sexually assaulted them: > “I believe them, and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it.” https://www.independent.co.uk/us-election-2020/kamala-harris-police-joe-biden-sexual-assault-law-and-order-2020-election-a9666131.html https://www.independent.co.uk/us-election-2020/kamala-harris...
Ensorceled 6y ago
I'd be interested in seeing an update to this piece. Doubling down on shamelessness got Trump the second most votes ever by a presidential candidate but lost the election. Doubling down on shamelessness might still cost the GOP the Senate. Maybe there is, to quote Lincoln, a "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." quality to shamelessness?
- baybal2 6y ago
  Even fooling just 10% of people is more than enough. It's always been better to have 10 rabidly fanatical followers than having 1000 passerby fans
  - neogodless 6y ago
    Unless you need to win more votes than your opponent. I don't think you can generalize politics and startups in the same breath with an aphorism. We are in a rather polarized political climate, so being a bit more extreme does seem to get you more attention and maybe more votes than being more centrist. But the 2020 U.S. Presidential election actually refuted this statement in the article: > ...in the same way that any major politician sticking to a pre-2016 playbook today is almost certainly not going to win. Biden was much more centrist/bi-partisan (in his messaging) than any of the other potential Democrat candidate, but he won the popular and electoral votes.
- Bakary 6y ago
  >I'd be interested in seeing an update to this piece. Doubling down on shamelessness got Trump the second most votes ever by a presidential candidate but lost the election. Doubling down on shamelessness might still cost the GOP the Senate. I would hardly qualify that as a strong rebuke of the idea so far
jbjbjbjb 6y ago
I wonder if society will get wise to this strategy. I know on Twitter we often find the shameless talk show host peddling some deranged conspiracy and the best response is to block or counter without engaging with the tweet (or just get off twitter). They’re doing it because Twitter rewards engagement even if it is just creating controversy and arguments for the sake of it.
pjc50 6y ago
I worry that this is an outplay of three things: - reality TV's general assault on dignity: doing ""shameful"" or ""disgusting"" things makes you popular and earns money - view-based monetisation: you can make money from people hatewatching you - internet shaming (sometimes called "cancel culture"): like any adverse experience of a population, it provides an evolutionary pressure. We're selecting for shamelessness, because if you respond to shame you get destroyed.
- pohl 6y ago
  In a way, “cancel culture” is a label used to vilify the last vestiges of shame as a useful force for curtailing abhorrent behavior.
- cicero 6y ago
  When shame is used as a weapon and tool of manipulation, a measure of shamelessness becomes a useful defense. As the demands of popular morality increase and change on a daily basis, at some point, some of us will give up trying to conform.
  - loopz 6y ago
    What we're seeing is the masses seizing autonomy, without the experience of consequences of power.
Bakary 6y ago
A couple of ideas from reading the post: 1. Society is becoming much easier for people with dark triad traits to navigate. This is due in part to the loss of community boundaries mentioned in the article. One aspect not yet mentioned is the information overload, in which case multiplying scandals is a perfectly rational strategy. 2. Anecdotally I've found that the "lovable rogue" type tends to be more popular than the person who follows the rules all the time. You want to project a sense of liveliness to be appreciated. Think of the kid from your school days who was often disruptive or naughty but followed the rules once in a while and still managed to win everyone's hearts. Ironically, rogues like this are rewarded for their partial rule following as it is seen as a special effort coming from them. Rule followers are taken for granted. 3. Charisma is more important than any trait you could have. It's not just charisma but a sense of being life affirming and owning your own personality and situation, like the rogue described above. 4. As soon as you apologize, the house of cards comes tumbling down. Just imagine what would happen if Trump were to apologize even once, for instance. It would be the last thing his base would tolerate. Cultivating your base is far more important than trying to appeal to lukewarm moderates. You must find the people genetically and culturally predisposed to like your style. 5. In the attention economy, attention becomes far, far more important than any other factor. Maybe 90% of your efforts should be placed on getting some if it's a factor in your success. 6. Social norms are changing at an ever faster rate, but the basic drive for relative status is still there. There will always be a competition, just that you may be left bewildered at the criteria used. It's important to adapt quickly and avoid expanding your identity to the point where you can no longer accept social changes. 7. In the end, the shameless individual is the most free. Shame is an ugly emotion, because social norms are often ugly and limiting. The sensitivity to shame is a strong character flaw that must be overcome. In the end, if you are just a host for ideas as mentioned, why not pick the path of self-affirmation? As the Greeks said, the person who does not belong in the polis is either a pariah or superhuman. By simple logic, very successful people generally have to break social expectations in some way.
- versale 6y ago
  > 7. In the end, the shameless individual is the most free. Shame is an ugly emotion, because social norms are often ugly and limiting. The sensitivity to shame is a strong character flaw that must be overcome. In the end, if you are just a host for ideas as mentioned, why not pick the path of self-affirmation. I guess this idea isn't particularly new and has been thoroughly researched by many. For some reason Nietzsche comes to my mind. And Dostoyevsky. E.g. from "Crime and Punishment": "I wanted to find out then and quickly whether I was a louse like everybody else or a man. Whether I can step over barriers or not, whether I dare stoop to pick up or not, whether I am a trembling creature or whether I have the right."
papito 6y ago
Shame - is good. It's the glue of civilization. There are MANY things that are legal that we can do, but we will not, as we will feel ashamed of it. It seems to me that about half of the general population is constrained by the "sanctions" of shame exclusively, but given the green light by a high profile example of, oh say, the President, will gladly act like horrible human beings, which is their original nature. Not only will they not feel shame, they may even be proud of being horrible. If anything, the last four years have taught me a lot about humanity, and how fragile our contract with society is.
- pjc50 6y ago
  A corollary of this is that the individual who becomes shameless becomes free - they can do whatever they want that they don't get physically stopped from doing. Individual liberation at the expense of other people, very Prisoner's Dilemma.
  - qznc 6y ago
    > I’m also short, bald, and near-sighted. People try shaming me for that stuff on a regular basis. But it doesn’t work because I lost all sense of shame some time ago. In my world view, shame is nothing but a filter some people put on their own observations. –Scott Adams https://www.scottadamssays.com/2016/04/01/shame-shaming/ https://www.scottadamssays.com/2016/04/01/shame-shaming/ > Trump admitted he was wrong to tweet about Cruz’ wife. This is the first time we have seen him admit wrong. Trump’s opponents are afraid (in the third dimension) that he can’t be shamed into acting appropriately. He just showed that he can. –Scott Adams https://www.scottadamssays.com/2016/04/04/derailing-the-trump-train/ https://www.scottadamssays.com/2016/04/04/derailing-the-trum...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - loopz 6y ago
      Except everything stated is pure conjecture, and do not reflect the true demonic nature of the man. Trump is now predictably planning and working for overturning the election, then to coup either state or party level (think: cleansing of heathens) and then to establish dictatorship. Not seeing this is being blindsided of how corrupt the wrong person can be.
christiansakai 6y ago
This is one of the strategy that I play in life. Most of my friends aren't aware that I do this intentionally (with balance of course, sometimes I did go off the rails but rarely) and it pays off socially bigger than I anticipated for. I didn't start doing that knowing that it would pay off though, it was just who I am. I think Paris Hilton/Trump/etc also probably discovered it unintentionally.
- I_Byte 6y ago
  Would you mind providing me with a few examples on how shamelessness can be pulled off on an individual level? I can see how shamelessness works when you are really big either politically or socially (Ex: Donald Trump). But I am having a hard time thinking of individual examples where the social cost that comes with doing shameless things outweigh the benefits.
hairofadog 6y ago
One barrier to shamelessness catching on as a strategy is that some people can pull it off and some people can’t. I think it has more to do with charisma than with intelligence or talent, and charisma is something that's hard to intentionally cultivate (or at least it seems to me that you can pull yourself out of charisma negative by eliminating bad habits, but I can't think of anyone who went from sub-charismatic to super-charismatic).
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  Expanding on being able to get away with things... Charisma is kind of paradoxical because you'd need to change so many things at the same time. Changing them one by one leaves you often worse and even less charismatic. Something that boosts the charisma of the charismatic guy may actively work against the non-charismatic one. Charisma is kind of like the anti-fragility concept of Taleb. It's when things that would normally harm people will paradoxically strengthen you.
blunte 6y ago
Shamelessness is a bit like alcohol: it amplifies the characteristics of the subject. This can be a good thing when it allows a good talent to be expressed, orit can be terrible if it allows a broken person to spread destruction upon others. In lesser bad examples, it can mean glorifying excessive selfish activities which take away from society in general. But what particularly bothers me as an outcome of the last 5 years of US political shamelessness is how it has lowered the standard of discourse to literal schoolground name calling and blatant, even absurd fabrication of lies. I honestly don't know if that can ever be undone.
- Pxtl 6y ago
  I'm more worried about how it's revealed how much of the us governance was run essentially on the honor system. Did it never occur to the framers that a popular corrupt president could completely end-run around the judicial branch by pardoning everybody on their speed dial? The rule of law has been completely castrated.
  - blunte 6y ago
    As I have observed my Texan elder family during this time, "rule of law" has really been "rules if i like them". The facade began to vanish once a black man moved into the White House.
    - loopz 6y ago
      Agreed. The backlash has been horrible, even if the feelings behind understated. I'm afraid we're up against genetic and cultural traits that are biased against equal opportunity and fair play. However, people can today claim higher autonomy and need to change strategy to become counted.
  - bjornsing 6y ago
    There is only so much you can do to protect the electorate from themselves...
  - travisjungroth 6y ago
z3t4 6y ago
There is also the opposite. No matter how correct and polite you are, there will be a small group of people that will hate you.
monster_group 6y ago
I was amazed when I repeatedly saw how an incredibly shameless guy in my college days not only got what he wanted but was also liked. He would say the most shameless things that would embarrass people while in their presence. For example - he would announce in the whole class who hadn't taken a shower in a week or who wasn't wearing underwear today (he would sometimes have this kind of information because we all used to live in the dorm.) Yet all the girls used to like him. Once I asked a girl why she liked him knowing that he says embarrassing and shameless things and makes jokes at people's expense. Her response was "what he says makes me laugh." P.S - I had nothing against the guy personally. He rarely made jokes at my expense - he didn't have enough jokeworthy material on me.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  Identifying things that other people might feel shame about does not feel like the same definition of shameless as the one in the article.
  - bittercynic 6y ago
    It's related - I feel shame when I say something that embarrasses another person. Maybe this guy doesn't realize that he's embarrassing people, or maybe he doesn't care as long as there is no immediate unpleasant consequence for him.
- asiachick 6y ago
  Embarrassing someone is a form of showing closeness, ingroupness depending on how it's done. You can call your brother a dork and he know you still love him where as if someone on the outside calls him a dork you might get angry. People like the one you mention (in my imagination since I'm imaging a particular type of person based on your description) have a kind of charisma/charm/skill that let's them embarrass people and basically communicate "I like you and we're close and me embarrassing you is proof"
- jes 6y ago
  I found value in learning about my "Mr. Nice Guy" behaviors and doing self-work to overcome them, to the extent I can do so. My nice-guy tendencies did great damage to my life. Yet at 61 years of age, many things are wired in so deeply that I'll probably never be able to undo them. I think what you may have seen is a man that wasn't a jerk, but also communicated a (reasonable) lack of concern for how he was viewed by others. "Mr. Nice Guys" are deeply concerned about how they will be seen by others, so there's a lot of self-censoring and manipulation that goes on for them. They also sort-of look to others to figure out what values they should hold and espouse ("Who they should be") rather than trying to determine their values based on what they most deeply believe to be right. Dr. Robert Glover (psychologist) is the go-to guy for anyone interested in more on this.
throwaway98797 6y ago
If someone is going to judge you publicly you can declaw their attack by highlighting your own flaw. As a kid the small ones get picked on. You can just own your stature. During these covid times people try to shame you to not to travel. Instead of making explanations of why it’s “okay” or “safe” I just say I like to travel. They can’t argue against that and it is empowering. I also think it helps keep friendship alive, because you don’t argue the facts; you state your preferences.
- strontium_90 6y ago
  I’m not sure I’d agree with your idea of expressing your preference as something that can’t be argued against. Your preference to travel could be understood as imposing a negative externality on those you contact while travelling (in the event you were infectious at the time). If so, I think an argument of why you are taking precautions to make your travel safer (for others) might be more persuasive or thoughtful than a mere statement of your preferences. If your preference approach is applied to other negative externality actions (like smoking in restaurants, driving much faster than others) the argument seems weaker .... your “I just like to do it [impose costs/risks on others]” rationale has the risk of appearing selfish rather than empowering.
  - throwaway98797 6y ago
    Agree that tends to appear / is selfish. My personal experience supports this as well. However, the moment you start to engage in mitigating behavior you are taking on the other persons frame. You give up your own agency. This forces you into a defensive position and most people aren’t going to change their minds. They are still going to judge you selfish regardless of how you mitigate the situation. So why waste the energy? It’s easier to take the small “I’m selfish” hit up front than to stretch it out. That’s my point that if you are going to do something that others think or in fact does impose negative externalities it is better to accept the straight judgment rather than to argue. Better in this sense to increase the likelihood of keeping your friends. People tend to remember how they feel and the more they argue and you still do what you want the angrier they get. Because now you’ve hurt them twice once by being a bad person (which is kinda forgivable) and two by not listening to them (not forgivable).
ltbarcly3 6y ago
I think a better title for this would be "strategy as a strategy". What this article really describes is any attempt to find a novel strategy instead of playing a common strategy optimally.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kthejoker2 6y ago
Mannig and Bradley covered this phenomenon extensively in The Rise of Victimhood Culture Much like the literal "loudness war", the race to be "outraged", turn every conflict to 11, and the refusal to accept people's shame as a sufficient response, has all but eliminated shame as a useful weapon against public transgressions. When shame is no longer a meaningful self-regulating mechanism in daily life, you are left with a nihilist Manichean arms race of immediately having both sides of an argument declare the other as an absolute evil - with no middle ground to stand on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_Victimhood_Culture?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_Victimhood_Culture...
- croissants 6y ago
  I promise I'm not trying to be cutesy and meta here, but I read this comment itself as participating in "turn[ing] every conflict to 11". Unless you're focusing on certain parts of the internet, I do not see most discourse as "a nihilist Manichean arms race of immediately having both sides of an argument declare the other as an absolute evil".
  - loopz 6y ago
    It's just an attempt to explain modern social trends, and relate it to a more interpersonal level of shame. We need to acknowledge this conflict is inherent in latest modern trends: autonomy vs social control. It's a change of governance happening, hence the change of strategies actually become forced. Shamelessness is nothing new, but was previously found only in rulers and jesters.
    - laughinghan 6y ago
      This seems like...word salad. What are you actually trying to say here? Autonomy vs social control is a modern trend? That's not what totalitarianism was? What change of governance? From who to who? (Or what to what?) Shamelessness was previously only found in rulers and jesters? There weren't ordinary people who were assholes, and shameless about it?
  - 6y ago
jonplackett 6y ago
Shamelessness for politicians forms a special kind of protection for them. Take Trump - if he had any shame then the revelation of multiple affairs would have been enough to bring him down. But by being so previously shameless it just runs off him. The problem is this expectation for politicians to be perfect humans and never do or say, or have done or have said anything wrong. So they're all kind of emulating this robotic version of themselves that never has any opinion people can object to. Shamelessness cut right through that and let Trump speak from his (very dark) heart, which is part of why people like him.
- loopz 6y ago
  That is not on Trump, but on failure of the supporters and opponents around him.
- letitbeirie 6y ago
  > The problem is this expectation for politicians to be perfect humans and never do or say, or have done or have said anything wrong. So they're all kind of emulating this robotic version of themselves that never has any opinion people can object to. Discrediting this expectation was one of the biggest silver linings of Trump's win in 2016 I think. The pressure for politicians to be flawless turned our politics into a least-common-denominator farce where the smallest gaffe matters more than the biggest policy ideas. See: 2004 Democratic nomination.
Ozzie_osman 6y ago
A lot of social psychology has studied cultural differences in shame. It turns out that modern Western societies are low on shame-orientation, and primarily "guilt"-driven, due to being highly individualistic. While many Eastern societies (and historical ones) are shame-driven due to being more collective. I find this article interesting in that context.
- scribu 6y ago
  It seems like you're referring to the guilt-shame-fear spectrum. [1] Very interesting! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt%E2%80%93shame%E2%80%93fear_spectrum_of_cultures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt%E2%80%93shame%E2%80%93fe...
marcus_holmes 6y ago
I'm curious about what happened to Duty. My grandparents' generation (English, WW2 generation) had very, very, strong social and emotional consequences for doing/not doing their "duty". This was commonly understood - "England expects every man to do his duty" - everyone knew what their duty was and how to do it. This might be as simple as a soldier fighting the enemy (and not running away), a husband supporting his family, a wife staying in an unhappy marriage to raise the children, and so on. Not all Duty was something we'd recognise as a good thing these days. In fact most of it we'd probably see as repressive now, but that's a different discussion. The consequence of not doing your duty was Shame. Personal, emotional shame, and public shaming by your peers. Publicly not doing your duty could lead to suicide as the only way of escaping the shame. Somehow between WW2 and here, we completely lost the idea of Duty as a personal responsibility. No-one today knows what their duty is, and would be confused if asked. So it seems kinda fitting that we're also losing the idea of Shame.
- jbay808 6y ago
  I don't know for sure, but I would guess that the war in Vietnam may have contributed to tearing down that belief in duty, at least in the United States. In Europe, perhaps it started its decline at the Nuremberg trials.
  - wavesounds 6y ago
    I think this confuses "Duty" with nationalism, it's peoples Duty to stop an unjust war. The Boy Scout oath says "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country". You could replace God with any moral belief system. I think our sense of Duty started to dissolve sometime in the 80s with the idea that "Greed is good" and then continued in the 90s with a rise in apathy. Both of which are selfish ideas, selfishness is the opposite of Duty.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      that's an interesting statement: "selfishness is the opposite of Duty" I'm inclined to agree - Duty is about serving others, or one's country, not oneself.
OminousWeapons 6y ago
This only works up to a point in some societies. Yes, you can get away with being shameless in the way the author describes (and be rewarded for it) if you're only loosely annoying people, but push it too far and you could end up with force being used against you. Jack Ma is a perfect example of this.
raphlinus 6y ago
I think shamelessness is a useful concept, but not really in isolation. Related topics include: the incentive structure around the strategy and whether the focus of the shame is a morally good or bad thing. My personal moral code is that lying is bad; this is an article of faith for me, a central tenet of my religion. I find it incredibly disturbing that shameless lying is increasingly a successful political strategy. Lying has always been associated with politicians, but the shameless aspect seems newer to me. If you were to talk about shame a few decades ago, one of the first things that would come to mind is sexual morality. Yet, some of the people I admire the most from that time are shameless homosexuals like Larry Kramer, who were incredibly effective advocates not only for AIDS health issues, but also for gay rights in general. And attitudes have indeed shifted, remarkably quickly. The fact that a strategy is successful tells you more about the incentive structure around the strategy than it does about the person executing the strategy. And the incentive structure around lying in particular is just broken - the most effective liars are celebrated for their skill, the "owning" of their more reality-based opponents. In this incentive environment, it is inevitable that people and institutions will adapt. I don't have a solution, but I do know that digital media in its current form is not it. When I was younger, I was idealistic about the idea that free and convenient access to the truth would make lie-based narratives harder to sustain, but now we're seeing the opposite. I personally would focus on that rather than the particular mechanism of shame and shamelessness.
- qwantim1 6y ago
  > My personal moral code is that lying is bad; this is an article of faith for me, a central tenet of my religion. Do you believe truth can be known by humans, or that as a human you should try to be truthful, with truth as an ideal or as an entity that could act as a god/deity but may or may not be able to interact clearly with our world? I think of truth as an ideal and concept that also could be an entity or related to the essence of an entity, but that knowledge of it is sparse.
  - raphlinus 6y ago
    Speaking for myself, I believe that some truth can be known by humans, but my faith is more about the ideal to strive for it. My Quaker faith speaks of "continuing revelation," particularly in contrast to originalism. But when I use the word "lying" I am very specific about an intentional act of deception. You don't have to get deep into philosophy or theology to figure that out, though there are always shades of whether the deceptive person believes their own lies.
dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
Amazing article, completely puts into words what I have thought about for a long time too. That said, shamelessness has been a strategy for far longer than he gives it credit for. Julius Caesar did some astonishing things after cowing the senate during his first Consulate, like granting himself a bunch of provinces and armies, getting a huge amount of legislation passed.. and of course, he gave himself three Triumphs after the Civil War, the 3rd one being for victory against other Romans! People who seem uncaring about others' social concerns, combined with great luck and skill, have always been able to ascend to meaningful leadership/cultish positions.
rchaud 6y ago
Paris Hilton was wealthy, connected and moved in circles swarming with paparazzi. I'd say those were more relevant to her fame, not the ditzy blonde persona, which came afterwards. By contrast, look at the cast of Jersey Shore. They were certainly shameless and built their fame on that, but where did that ultimately get them? Where are they now? The same is true in the soccer world. AC Milan forward Zlatan Ibrahimovic is notorious for this [0]. Most top players in the sport have very reserved public personas, so Ibra's constant braggadocio is exceedingly rare. But it would sound pathetic and delusional if he wasn't one of the top 10 strikers of the past 20 years. Most soccer players are retired by 35 or playing in less strenuous leagues little money. Ibra is 39 now and playing for a team at the top of the Italian Serie A. [0] Some choice quotes: "There was the thought that this would send me into retirement. I sent their entire country into retirement." - After scoring twice to qualify Sweden for Euro 2016 over Denmark. "It's true I don't know much about the players here, but they definitely know who I am." - On his move to Ligue 1 in 2012.
- ChefboyOG 6y ago
  This is an interesting comparison because I think it actually highlights something deeper here, which is that the kind of shamelessness described in this post is an effective—if not optimal—strategy for a fundamentally different type of reward. Paris Hilton, for example, was certainly already in a privileged tier of humans—as were/are many others who are born into similar circumstances. It seems, however, that the reward she was optimizing for (building a platform around her persona, effectively turning her life into a consumer brand) was not the same as everyone else in that circle. Her shamelessness seems like a very effective policy, in that context. Ibra (one of my all-time favorite players) is also a perfect example of this. Despite being a high-level competitor and objectively world-class player, he is also interested in using his personal brand as a monetizable tool in a way that many other top players do not (though, it's fair to mention that players like Maradona have done this historically as well). For example, Ibra's move to the MLS—and the fact that he was paid a record breaking 7.5 million per year—certainly required him to be a great player, but it's also fair to say that the platform he brought with him made him especially attractive to a team looking to sell jerseys and season tickets. So yes, I think you're right that the table stakes to shamelessness being effective are the essential building blocks of success in one's field—Paris Hilton/Donald Trump have to have wealth and access, Zlatan has to be world-class, etc.—but I think that what that shamelessness buys them is a different kind of success, one they might not achieve without shamelessness (or without some parallel promotional strategy).
stakkur 6y ago
>I think the “shameless” approach is becoming a dominant strategy today. It was first popularized in modern canon by Paris Hilton This--and most of the post--reads like a lazy high school paper. It's just cobbled together nonsense.
thinkingemote 6y ago
I remember hearing a BBC radio episode about a prison counsellor who was themselves an ex-con who viewed offenders via the concept of shame. He said that no other therapy and approach looked at shame. Shame was at the root of many violent offences. I think one example, for example, was that an offender held intense personal shame for things that happened to or by them and that shame was a driving force. I think he said that shame is so deep down that people will do everything to avoid others uncovering it. So you have shame and are willing to break the law to avoid others seeing it. Im leaving this hear as it will probably be missed in the active chat, but perhaps someone in the future will find it via a search, if you do, I'd be interested in this theory as I've never heard anything more about it since.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mitchtbaum 6y ago
Also Godlessness
MilesTeg 6y ago
I have played Avalon a few times but never with the Percival mechanic. However I don't think that being "shameless" can be the dominant strategy. If you make it so you must be either Percival or Merlin the opponents can always pick you as Merlin and win the majority of the time. So you could only employ the strategy somewhere and probably much less than 50% of the time. Yes it works if no one is thinking but lots of strategies work if no one is thinking. As to the real life analogies my opinion is this: Being shameless is a political strategy. Sometimes it's real and sometimes it's an act. Genuine shamelessness seems to do better because people who are not thinking too hard like those Avalon players who fall for shameless Merlin still often recognize a fake personality.
motohagiography 6y ago
A good friend use to say, "ask yourself, what has posterity ever done for you?" Shame is an inferior strategy, and seeing how it drives people to truly insane actions, the best response to shaming tactics is to revolt and respond directly. However, there is an in-group version of shaming, and an out-group version. It's a really deep subject.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

188 points by etherio 6y ago

qznc 6y ago

As one hypothesis what has changed: Attention can be monetized (or weaponized) more easily today. I'd also question if this is actually that new. In medieval times, the court jester used a similar strategy to influence.

gonzo41 6y ago

As someone who has worked in sales for a Bank. I feel like the author is not aware that shamelessness has been a strategy for a long, long time.

jnwatson 6y ago
There's a different thing going on in corporate culture. Corporations can't feel shame, since they aren't alive. There's a certain amoral one-upmanship in corporate culture that's seemingly immune from any sort of shame defense. For example, someone inside Wells Fargo suggested that they could simply open new bank accounts for existing customers without telling them. If this were an individual moneychanger, they would be shamed by society for being dishonest. Even if individual employees can be shamed (and the best executives have long disabled that emotional response), the corporation can just replace those employees.
Symmetry 6y ago
Shame mostly exists within groups, it's much less of a thing for members of a group competing with other groups. Which of course hinges on where you draw your group identity boundaries.

mam2 6y ago

Surprising he mentions Paris Hilton but not Trump who did exactly that. The interesing question is why ? The answer is hypocrisy. When you have too much of "how you should behave" It doesn't connect with laypeople enough and so it blows up and laypeople like it so it becomes popular..

oarsinsync 6y ago
> Without getting into tiresome politics, the “shameless” strategy also defined the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. Presumably he’s aware naming the person by name will inflame the audience and derail the conversation in a way that Paris will not.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nailer 6y ago
It's everyone. Yes that includes Trump, but also Kamala Harris who accused Biden of sexual harassment and then joined him as a running mate and the various people that engaged in the Russiagate conspiracy. There's no penalty to being wrong or being shown to be a hypocrite. The lie gets 40K retweets, the correction 300.
- papito 6y ago
  The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
- kskqkqk912 6y ago
  The part about Kamala Harris is factually incorrect. Please provide a source where she or one of her surrogates is quoted leveling this type of accusing at Biden.
  - Veen 6y ago
    She said, in reference to the women who alleged Biden sexually assaulted them: > “I believe them, and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it.” https://www.independent.co.uk/us-election-2020/kamala-harris-police-joe-biden-sexual-assault-law-and-order-2020-election-a9666131.html https://www.independent.co.uk/us-election-2020/kamala-harris...

Ensorceled 6y ago

I'd be interested in seeing an update to this piece. Doubling down on shamelessness got Trump the second most votes ever by a presidential candidate but lost the election. Doubling down on shamelessness might still cost the GOP the Senate. Maybe there is, to quote Lincoln, a "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." quality to shamelessness?

baybal2 6y ago
Even fooling just 10% of people is more than enough. It's always been better to have 10 rabidly fanatical followers than having 1000 passerby fans
- neogodless 6y ago
  Unless you need to win more votes than your opponent. I don't think you can generalize politics and startups in the same breath with an aphorism. We are in a rather polarized political climate, so being a bit more extreme does seem to get you more attention and maybe more votes than being more centrist. But the 2020 U.S. Presidential election actually refuted this statement in the article: > ...in the same way that any major politician sticking to a pre-2016 playbook today is almost certainly not going to win. Biden was much more centrist/bi-partisan (in his messaging) than any of the other potential Democrat candidate, but he won the popular and electoral votes.
Bakary 6y ago
>I'd be interested in seeing an update to this piece. Doubling down on shamelessness got Trump the second most votes ever by a presidential candidate but lost the election. Doubling down on shamelessness might still cost the GOP the Senate. I would hardly qualify that as a strong rebuke of the idea so far

jbjbjbjb 6y ago

I wonder if society will get wise to this strategy. I know on Twitter we often find the shameless talk show host peddling some deranged conspiracy and the best response is to block or counter without engaging with the tweet (or just get off twitter). They’re doing it because Twitter rewards engagement even if it is just creating controversy and arguments for the sake of it.

pjc50 6y ago

I worry that this is an outplay of three things: - reality TV's general assault on dignity: doing ""shameful"" or ""disgusting"" things makes you popular and earns money - view-based monetisation: you can make money from people hatewatching you - internet shaming (sometimes called "cancel culture"): like any adverse experience of a population, it provides an evolutionary pressure. We're selecting for shamelessness, because if you respond to shame you get destroyed.

pohl 6y ago
In a way, “cancel culture” is a label used to vilify the last vestiges of shame as a useful force for curtailing abhorrent behavior.
cicero 6y ago
When shame is used as a weapon and tool of manipulation, a measure of shamelessness becomes a useful defense. As the demands of popular morality increase and change on a daily basis, at some point, some of us will give up trying to conform.
- loopz 6y ago
  What we're seeing is the masses seizing autonomy, without the experience of consequences of power.

Bakary 6y ago

A couple of ideas from reading the post: 1. Society is becoming much easier for people with dark triad traits to navigate. This is due in part to the loss of community boundaries mentioned in the article. One aspect not yet mentioned is the information overload, in which case multiplying scandals is a perfectly rational strategy. 2. Anecdotally I've found that the "lovable rogue" type tends to be more popular than the person who follows the rules all the time. You want to project a sense of liveliness to be appreciated. Think of the kid from your school days who was often disruptive or naughty but followed the rules once in a while and still managed to win everyone's hearts. Ironically, rogues like this are rewarded for their partial rule following as it is seen as a special effort coming from them. Rule followers are taken for granted. 3. Charisma is more important than any trait you could have. It's not just charisma but a sense of being life affirming and owning your own personality and situation, like the rogue described above. 4. As soon as you apologize, the house of cards comes tumbling down. Just imagine what would happen if Trump were to apologize even once, for instance. It would be the last thing his base would tolerate. Cultivating your base is far more important than trying to appeal to lukewarm moderates. You must find the people genetically and culturally predisposed to like your style. 5. In the attention economy, attention becomes far, far more important than any other factor. Maybe 90% of your efforts should be placed on getting some if it's a factor in your success. 6. Social norms are changing at an ever faster rate, but the basic drive for relative status is still there. There will always be a competition, just that you may be left bewildered at the criteria used. It's important to adapt quickly and avoid expanding your identity to the point where you can no longer accept social changes. 7. In the end, the shameless individual is the most free. Shame is an ugly emotion, because social norms are often ugly and limiting. The sensitivity to shame is a strong character flaw that must be overcome. In the end, if you are just a host for ideas as mentioned, why not pick the path of self-affirmation? As the Greeks said, the person who does not belong in the polis is either a pariah or superhuman. By simple logic, very successful people generally have to break social expectations in some way.

versale 6y ago
> 7. In the end, the shameless individual is the most free. Shame is an ugly emotion, because social norms are often ugly and limiting. The sensitivity to shame is a strong character flaw that must be overcome. In the end, if you are just a host for ideas as mentioned, why not pick the path of self-affirmation. I guess this idea isn't particularly new and has been thoroughly researched by many. For some reason Nietzsche comes to my mind. And Dostoyevsky. E.g. from "Crime and Punishment": "I wanted to find out then and quickly whether I was a louse like everybody else or a man. Whether I can step over barriers or not, whether I dare stoop to pick up or not, whether I am a trembling creature or whether I have the right."

papito 6y ago

Shame - is good. It's the glue of civilization. There are MANY things that are legal that we can do, but we will not, as we will feel ashamed of it. It seems to me that about half of the general population is constrained by the "sanctions" of shame exclusively, but given the green light by a high profile example of, oh say, the President, will gladly act like horrible human beings, which is their original nature. Not only will they not feel shame, they may even be proud of being horrible. If anything, the last four years have taught me a lot about humanity, and how fragile our contract with society is.

pjc50 6y ago
A corollary of this is that the individual who becomes shameless becomes free - they can do whatever they want that they don't get physically stopped from doing. Individual liberation at the expense of other people, very Prisoner's Dilemma.
- qznc 6y ago
  > I’m also short, bald, and near-sighted. People try shaming me for that stuff on a regular basis. But it doesn’t work because I lost all sense of shame some time ago. In my world view, shame is nothing but a filter some people put on their own observations. –Scott Adams https://www.scottadamssays.com/2016/04/01/shame-shaming/ https://www.scottadamssays.com/2016/04/01/shame-shaming/ > Trump admitted he was wrong to tweet about Cruz’ wife. This is the first time we have seen him admit wrong. Trump’s opponents are afraid (in the third dimension) that he can’t be shamed into acting appropriately. He just showed that he can. –Scott Adams https://www.scottadamssays.com/2016/04/04/derailing-the-trump-train/ https://www.scottadamssays.com/2016/04/04/derailing-the-trum...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - loopz 6y ago
    Except everything stated is pure conjecture, and do not reflect the true demonic nature of the man. Trump is now predictably planning and working for overturning the election, then to coup either state or party level (think: cleansing of heathens) and then to establish dictatorship. Not seeing this is being blindsided of how corrupt the wrong person can be.

christiansakai 6y ago

This is one of the strategy that I play in life. Most of my friends aren't aware that I do this intentionally (with balance of course, sometimes I did go off the rails but rarely) and it pays off socially bigger than I anticipated for. I didn't start doing that knowing that it would pay off though, it was just who I am. I think Paris Hilton/Trump/etc also probably discovered it unintentionally.

I_Byte 6y ago
Would you mind providing me with a few examples on how shamelessness can be pulled off on an individual level? I can see how shamelessness works when you are really big either politically or socially (Ex: Donald Trump). But I am having a hard time thinking of individual examples where the social cost that comes with doing shameless things outweigh the benefits.

hairofadog 6y ago

One barrier to shamelessness catching on as a strategy is that some people can pull it off and some people can’t. I think it has more to do with charisma than with intelligence or talent, and charisma is something that's hard to intentionally cultivate (or at least it seems to me that you can pull yourself out of charisma negative by eliminating bad habits, but I can't think of anyone who went from sub-charismatic to super-charismatic).

bonoboTP 6y ago
Expanding on being able to get away with things... Charisma is kind of paradoxical because you'd need to change so many things at the same time. Changing them one by one leaves you often worse and even less charismatic. Something that boosts the charisma of the charismatic guy may actively work against the non-charismatic one. Charisma is kind of like the anti-fragility concept of Taleb. It's when things that would normally harm people will paradoxically strengthen you.

blunte 6y ago

Shamelessness is a bit like alcohol: it amplifies the characteristics of the subject. This can be a good thing when it allows a good talent to be expressed, orit can be terrible if it allows a broken person to spread destruction upon others. In lesser bad examples, it can mean glorifying excessive selfish activities which take away from society in general. But what particularly bothers me as an outcome of the last 5 years of US political shamelessness is how it has lowered the standard of discourse to literal schoolground name calling and blatant, even absurd fabrication of lies. I honestly don't know if that can ever be undone.

Pxtl 6y ago
I'm more worried about how it's revealed how much of the us governance was run essentially on the honor system. Did it never occur to the framers that a popular corrupt president could completely end-run around the judicial branch by pardoning everybody on their speed dial? The rule of law has been completely castrated.
- blunte 6y ago
  As I have observed my Texan elder family during this time, "rule of law" has really been "rules if i like them". The facade began to vanish once a black man moved into the White House.
  - loopz 6y ago
    Agreed. The backlash has been horrible, even if the feelings behind understated. I'm afraid we're up against genetic and cultural traits that are biased against equal opportunity and fair play. However, people can today claim higher autonomy and need to change strategy to become counted.
- bjornsing 6y ago
  There is only so much you can do to protect the electorate from themselves...
- travisjungroth 6y ago

z3t4 6y ago

There is also the opposite. No matter how correct and polite you are, there will be a small group of people that will hate you.

monster_group 6y ago

I was amazed when I repeatedly saw how an incredibly shameless guy in my college days not only got what he wanted but was also liked. He would say the most shameless things that would embarrass people while in their presence. For example - he would announce in the whole class who hadn't taken a shower in a week or who wasn't wearing underwear today (he would sometimes have this kind of information because we all used to live in the dorm.) Yet all the girls used to like him. Once I asked a girl why she liked him knowing that he says embarrassing and shameless things and makes jokes at people's expense. Her response was "what he says makes me laugh." P.S - I had nothing against the guy personally. He rarely made jokes at my expense - he didn't have enough jokeworthy material on me.

throwaway2245 6y ago
Identifying things that other people might feel shame about does not feel like the same definition of shameless as the one in the article.
- bittercynic 6y ago
  It's related - I feel shame when I say something that embarrasses another person. Maybe this guy doesn't realize that he's embarrassing people, or maybe he doesn't care as long as there is no immediate unpleasant consequence for him.
asiachick 6y ago
Embarrassing someone is a form of showing closeness, ingroupness depending on how it's done. You can call your brother a dork and he know you still love him where as if someone on the outside calls him a dork you might get angry. People like the one you mention (in my imagination since I'm imaging a particular type of person based on your description) have a kind of charisma/charm/skill that let's them embarrass people and basically communicate "I like you and we're close and me embarrassing you is proof"
jes 6y ago
I found value in learning about my "Mr. Nice Guy" behaviors and doing self-work to overcome them, to the extent I can do so. My nice-guy tendencies did great damage to my life. Yet at 61 years of age, many things are wired in so deeply that I'll probably never be able to undo them. I think what you may have seen is a man that wasn't a jerk, but also communicated a (reasonable) lack of concern for how he was viewed by others. "Mr. Nice Guys" are deeply concerned about how they will be seen by others, so there's a lot of self-censoring and manipulation that goes on for them. They also sort-of look to others to figure out what values they should hold and espouse ("Who they should be") rather than trying to determine their values based on what they most deeply believe to be right. Dr. Robert Glover (psychologist) is the go-to guy for anyone interested in more on this.

throwaway98797 6y ago

If someone is going to judge you publicly you can declaw their attack by highlighting your own flaw. As a kid the small ones get picked on. You can just own your stature. During these covid times people try to shame you to not to travel. Instead of making explanations of why it’s “okay” or “safe” I just say I like to travel. They can’t argue against that and it is empowering. I also think it helps keep friendship alive, because you don’t argue the facts; you state your preferences.

strontium_90 6y ago
I’m not sure I’d agree with your idea of expressing your preference as something that can’t be argued against. Your preference to travel could be understood as imposing a negative externality on those you contact while travelling (in the event you were infectious at the time). If so, I think an argument of why you are taking precautions to make your travel safer (for others) might be more persuasive or thoughtful than a mere statement of your preferences. If your preference approach is applied to other negative externality actions (like smoking in restaurants, driving much faster than others) the argument seems weaker .... your “I just like to do it [impose costs/risks on others]” rationale has the risk of appearing selfish rather than empowering.
- throwaway98797 6y ago
  Agree that tends to appear / is selfish. My personal experience supports this as well. However, the moment you start to engage in mitigating behavior you are taking on the other persons frame. You give up your own agency. This forces you into a defensive position and most people aren’t going to change their minds. They are still going to judge you selfish regardless of how you mitigate the situation. So why waste the energy? It’s easier to take the small “I’m selfish” hit up front than to stretch it out. That’s my point that if you are going to do something that others think or in fact does impose negative externalities it is better to accept the straight judgment rather than to argue. Better in this sense to increase the likelihood of keeping your friends. People tend to remember how they feel and the more they argue and you still do what you want the angrier they get. Because now you’ve hurt them twice once by being a bad person (which is kinda forgivable) and two by not listening to them (not forgivable).

ltbarcly3 6y ago

I think a better title for this would be "strategy as a strategy". What this article really describes is any attempt to find a novel strategy instead of playing a common strategy optimally.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

kthejoker2 6y ago

Mannig and Bradley covered this phenomenon extensively in The Rise of Victimhood Culture Much like the literal "loudness war", the race to be "outraged", turn every conflict to 11, and the refusal to accept people's shame as a sufficient response, has all but eliminated shame as a useful weapon against public transgressions. When shame is no longer a meaningful self-regulating mechanism in daily life, you are left with a nihilist Manichean arms race of immediately having both sides of an argument declare the other as an absolute evil - with no middle ground to stand on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_Victimhood_Culture?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_Victimhood_Culture...

croissants 6y ago
I promise I'm not trying to be cutesy and meta here, but I read this comment itself as participating in "turn[ing] every conflict to 11". Unless you're focusing on certain parts of the internet, I do not see most discourse as "a nihilist Manichean arms race of immediately having both sides of an argument declare the other as an absolute evil".
- loopz 6y ago
  It's just an attempt to explain modern social trends, and relate it to a more interpersonal level of shame. We need to acknowledge this conflict is inherent in latest modern trends: autonomy vs social control. It's a change of governance happening, hence the change of strategies actually become forced. Shamelessness is nothing new, but was previously found only in rulers and jesters.
  - laughinghan 6y ago
    This seems like...word salad. What are you actually trying to say here? Autonomy vs social control is a modern trend? That's not what totalitarianism was? What change of governance? From who to who? (Or what to what?) Shamelessness was previously only found in rulers and jesters? There weren't ordinary people who were assholes, and shameless about it?
- 6y ago

jonplackett 6y ago

Shamelessness for politicians forms a special kind of protection for them. Take Trump - if he had any shame then the revelation of multiple affairs would have been enough to bring him down. But by being so previously shameless it just runs off him. The problem is this expectation for politicians to be perfect humans and never do or say, or have done or have said anything wrong. So they're all kind of emulating this robotic version of themselves that never has any opinion people can object to. Shamelessness cut right through that and let Trump speak from his (very dark) heart, which is part of why people like him.

loopz 6y ago
That is not on Trump, but on failure of the supporters and opponents around him.
letitbeirie 6y ago
> The problem is this expectation for politicians to be perfect humans and never do or say, or have done or have said anything wrong. So they're all kind of emulating this robotic version of themselves that never has any opinion people can object to. Discrediting this expectation was one of the biggest silver linings of Trump's win in 2016 I think. The pressure for politicians to be flawless turned our politics into a least-common-denominator farce where the smallest gaffe matters more than the biggest policy ideas. See: 2004 Democratic nomination.

Ozzie_osman 6y ago

A lot of social psychology has studied cultural differences in shame. It turns out that modern Western societies are low on shame-orientation, and primarily "guilt"-driven, due to being highly individualistic. While many Eastern societies (and historical ones) are shame-driven due to being more collective. I find this article interesting in that context.

scribu 6y ago
It seems like you're referring to the guilt-shame-fear spectrum. [1] Very interesting! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt%E2%80%93shame%E2%80%93fear_spectrum_of_cultures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt%E2%80%93shame%E2%80%93fe...

marcus_holmes 6y ago

I'm curious about what happened to Duty. My grandparents' generation (English, WW2 generation) had very, very, strong social and emotional consequences for doing/not doing their "duty". This was commonly understood - "England expects every man to do his duty" - everyone knew what their duty was and how to do it. This might be as simple as a soldier fighting the enemy (and not running away), a husband supporting his family, a wife staying in an unhappy marriage to raise the children, and so on. Not all Duty was something we'd recognise as a good thing these days. In fact most of it we'd probably see as repressive now, but that's a different discussion. The consequence of not doing your duty was Shame. Personal, emotional shame, and public shaming by your peers. Publicly not doing your duty could lead to suicide as the only way of escaping the shame. Somehow between WW2 and here, we completely lost the idea of Duty as a personal responsibility. No-one today knows what their duty is, and would be confused if asked. So it seems kinda fitting that we're also losing the idea of Shame.

jbay808 6y ago
I don't know for sure, but I would guess that the war in Vietnam may have contributed to tearing down that belief in duty, at least in the United States. In Europe, perhaps it started its decline at the Nuremberg trials.
- wavesounds 6y ago
  I think this confuses "Duty" with nationalism, it's peoples Duty to stop an unjust war. The Boy Scout oath says "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country". You could replace God with any moral belief system. I think our sense of Duty started to dissolve sometime in the 80s with the idea that "Greed is good" and then continued in the 90s with a rise in apathy. Both of which are selfish ideas, selfishness is the opposite of Duty.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    that's an interesting statement: "selfishness is the opposite of Duty" I'm inclined to agree - Duty is about serving others, or one's country, not oneself.

OminousWeapons 6y ago

This only works up to a point in some societies. Yes, you can get away with being shameless in the way the author describes (and be rewarded for it) if you're only loosely annoying people, but push it too far and you could end up with force being used against you. Jack Ma is a perfect example of this.

raphlinus 6y ago

I think shamelessness is a useful concept, but not really in isolation. Related topics include: the incentive structure around the strategy and whether the focus of the shame is a morally good or bad thing. My personal moral code is that lying is bad; this is an article of faith for me, a central tenet of my religion. I find it incredibly disturbing that shameless lying is increasingly a successful political strategy. Lying has always been associated with politicians, but the shameless aspect seems newer to me. If you were to talk about shame a few decades ago, one of the first things that would come to mind is sexual morality. Yet, some of the people I admire the most from that time are shameless homosexuals like Larry Kramer, who were incredibly effective advocates not only for AIDS health issues, but also for gay rights in general. And attitudes have indeed shifted, remarkably quickly. The fact that a strategy is successful tells you more about the incentive structure around the strategy than it does about the person executing the strategy. And the incentive structure around lying in particular is just broken - the most effective liars are celebrated for their skill, the "owning" of their more reality-based opponents. In this incentive environment, it is inevitable that people and institutions will adapt. I don't have a solution, but I do know that digital media in its current form is not it. When I was younger, I was idealistic about the idea that free and convenient access to the truth would make lie-based narratives harder to sustain, but now we're seeing the opposite. I personally would focus on that rather than the particular mechanism of shame and shamelessness.

qwantim1 6y ago
> My personal moral code is that lying is bad; this is an article of faith for me, a central tenet of my religion. Do you believe truth can be known by humans, or that as a human you should try to be truthful, with truth as an ideal or as an entity that could act as a god/deity but may or may not be able to interact clearly with our world? I think of truth as an ideal and concept that also could be an entity or related to the essence of an entity, but that knowledge of it is sparse.
- raphlinus 6y ago
  Speaking for myself, I believe that some truth can be known by humans, but my faith is more about the ideal to strive for it. My Quaker faith speaks of "continuing revelation," particularly in contrast to originalism. But when I use the word "lying" I am very specific about an intentional act of deception. You don't have to get deep into philosophy or theology to figure that out, though there are always shades of whether the deceptive person believes their own lies.

dj_mc_merlin 6y ago

Amazing article, completely puts into words what I have thought about for a long time too. That said, shamelessness has been a strategy for far longer than he gives it credit for. Julius Caesar did some astonishing things after cowing the senate during his first Consulate, like granting himself a bunch of provinces and armies, getting a huge amount of legislation passed.. and of course, he gave himself three Triumphs after the Civil War, the 3rd one being for victory against other Romans! People who seem uncaring about others' social concerns, combined with great luck and skill, have always been able to ascend to meaningful leadership/cultish positions.

rchaud 6y ago

Paris Hilton was wealthy, connected and moved in circles swarming with paparazzi. I'd say those were more relevant to her fame, not the ditzy blonde persona, which came afterwards. By contrast, look at the cast of Jersey Shore. They were certainly shameless and built their fame on that, but where did that ultimately get them? Where are they now? The same is true in the soccer world. AC Milan forward Zlatan Ibrahimovic is notorious for this [0]. Most top players in the sport have very reserved public personas, so Ibra's constant braggadocio is exceedingly rare. But it would sound pathetic and delusional if he wasn't one of the top 10 strikers of the past 20 years. Most soccer players are retired by 35 or playing in less strenuous leagues little money. Ibra is 39 now and playing for a team at the top of the Italian Serie A. [0] Some choice quotes: "There was the thought that this would send me into retirement. I sent their entire country into retirement." - After scoring twice to qualify Sweden for Euro 2016 over Denmark. "It's true I don't know much about the players here, but they definitely know who I am." - On his move to Ligue 1 in 2012.

ChefboyOG 6y ago
This is an interesting comparison because I think it actually highlights something deeper here, which is that the kind of shamelessness described in this post is an effective—if not optimal—strategy for a fundamentally different type of reward. Paris Hilton, for example, was certainly already in a privileged tier of humans—as were/are many others who are born into similar circumstances. It seems, however, that the reward she was optimizing for (building a platform around her persona, effectively turning her life into a consumer brand) was not the same as everyone else in that circle. Her shamelessness seems like a very effective policy, in that context. Ibra (one of my all-time favorite players) is also a perfect example of this. Despite being a high-level competitor and objectively world-class player, he is also interested in using his personal brand as a monetizable tool in a way that many other top players do not (though, it's fair to mention that players like Maradona have done this historically as well). For example, Ibra's move to the MLS—and the fact that he was paid a record breaking 7.5 million per year—certainly required him to be a great player, but it's also fair to say that the platform he brought with him made him especially attractive to a team looking to sell jerseys and season tickets. So yes, I think you're right that the table stakes to shamelessness being effective are the essential building blocks of success in one's field—Paris Hilton/Donald Trump have to have wealth and access, Zlatan has to be world-class, etc.—but I think that what that shamelessness buys them is a different kind of success, one they might not achieve without shamelessness (or without some parallel promotional strategy).

stakkur 6y ago

>I think the “shameless” approach is becoming a dominant strategy today. It was first popularized in modern canon by Paris Hilton This--and most of the post--reads like a lazy high school paper. It's just cobbled together nonsense.

thinkingemote 6y ago

I remember hearing a BBC radio episode about a prison counsellor who was themselves an ex-con who viewed offenders via the concept of shame. He said that no other therapy and approach looked at shame. Shame was at the root of many violent offences. I think one example, for example, was that an offender held intense personal shame for things that happened to or by them and that shame was a driving force. I think he said that shame is so deep down that people will do everything to avoid others uncovering it. So you have shame and are willing to break the law to avoid others seeing it. Im leaving this hear as it will probably be missed in the active chat, but perhaps someone in the future will find it via a search, if you do, I'd be interested in this theory as I've never heard anything more about it since.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mitchtbaum 6y ago

Also Godlessness

MilesTeg 6y ago

I have played Avalon a few times but never with the Percival mechanic. However I don't think that being "shameless" can be the dominant strategy. If you make it so you must be either Percival or Merlin the opponents can always pick you as Merlin and win the majority of the time. So you could only employ the strategy somewhere and probably much less than 50% of the time. Yes it works if no one is thinking but lots of strategies work if no one is thinking. As to the real life analogies my opinion is this: Being shameless is a political strategy. Sometimes it's real and sometimes it's an act. Genuine shamelessness seems to do better because people who are not thinking too hard like those Avalon players who fall for shameless Merlin still often recognize a fake personality.

motohagiography 6y ago

A good friend use to say, "ask yourself, what has posterity ever done for you?" Shame is an inferior strategy, and seeing how it drives people to truly insane actions, the best response to shaming tactics is to revolt and respond directly. However, there is an in-group version of shaming, and an out-group version. It's a really deep subject.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]