4 ms·
For lying, just as with coding, you just need to develop a ruleset that you can use as a framework that you can apply consistently depending on the person's rol
by jongjong 2y ago
For lying, just as with coding, you just need to develop a ruleset that you can use as a framework that you can apply consistently depending on the person's role within your life/career. You need to divide your lies into a limited number of alternative realities that are easy to keep track of. Then depending on the role of the person you're communicating with, you adhere to one reality or another. This ensures that everyone in the same group operates within the same reality... So when people who exist in the same reality talk to each other, they will believe that you are logically consistent. The challenge is mostly about ensuring that people from different groups/realities you've crafted never meet or talk to each other. With social media filter bubbles nowadays, it barely requires any effort to do this; if the big guys manage to make it work with billions of people, surely you can do it with just your own network.
You could maximize your gains by having a custom-crafted reality tailored for each individual but the risks go up by an order of magnitude since it means that you have to put up and maintain more information barriers between the different participants. Also, they will never trust you fully because that requires confirmation from a third party... And you can never create that social confirmation scenario if every person who knows you has a different reality about you in their minds. It's better to forego some of the bigger potential gains of one-person-one-reality and instead go for a lower risk approach with fewer 'shared realities' with significant overlap between themselves and where the discrepancies between the different realities which you crafted is just enough to yield some benefit for you but can also provide you the social support necessary to generate a certain level of authenticity if doubts arise surrounding some of your more creative money-maker narratives.
- monero-xmr 2y agoThe way to lie properly is to fully believe the lie. If I choose to lie, I immediately accept that the lie is now truth and I forget what the prior truth was.
- intelVISA 2y agoAh, the Gill Bates method.
- rvnx 2y agoOr the MythBusters: "I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
- jongjong 2y agoBut how do you arbitrage situations where the yields are concentrated in belief discrepancies between two different groups? You just pick the group with the highest yield potential and give up on the other one? Risky. What if there is an overarching narrative change? This is especially problematic when the group which provides the highest yield potential is further from ground truth because ground truth exerts a kind of gravity on all narratives. The scapegoating threat is too high for my taste. I'm not well versed in scapegoat selection. Being too strongly tied to a narrative puts you in the crosshairs of the big guys if things don't pan out. The problem with full narrative buy-in is that it's impossible to spin out of it later because you didn't plan ahead. Some positions are easy to spin out of while others are essentially impossible. Full narrative buy-in doesn't play well with position selection IMO.
- r0s 2y agoI choose to believe that I never do this.
- triyambakam 2y agoYou put a lot of work into explaining this! Thank you, haha. Sincerely entertaining, or educating.
- akira2501 2y agoThe problem is the police know how to use negative look ahead assertions which tend to trap you into one lie or another.
- katzenversteher 2y agoWhat I learned from watching a lot of true crime police interrogation footage on YouTube is: Always request a lawyer!
- akira2501 2y agoSay nothing. Play dumb. Be patient.
- mistermann 2y ago> negative look ahead assertions Any chance you could explain what these are?
- akira2501 2y agoIt was a joke about the feature of the same name in the context of regular expressions. They'll ask a series of incriminating questions resulting in negative answers from you that can then be shown later to be false by inference. They may get you to assert that you never been to a certain location or never taken a certain action, they will accept that assertion, and then get you to add details to it. Later they'll show that one of your assertions was false, and therefore, all of the other dependent ones must be as well.
- mistermann 2y agoWatching the White House Press Secretary deal with reporters is good insight into how deceit (and everyone knows it) is done in broad daylight at the highest levels. One of them many funny quirks of Western "civilization" that we don't talk about in any really serious way. Humans are so weird.