4 ms·

However, the best way Howard gets the truth out of his guests is by lying directly to them about a specific piece of their life. By telling them a lie about the

However, the best way Howard gets the truth out of his guests is by lying directly to them about a specific piece of their life. By telling them a lie about themselves, the very first reaction they have is to correct it and by doing so, they give the answer he’s searching for. This is very useful Usenet+ trick to get an answer to a question. You could be nice and simply ask a question: "How can I do X in Y?" and you might get an answer. Maybe. Or you could simply assert, "It is impossible to do X in Y", and get a flood of replies because, well, xkcd 386 should cover it. http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/ edit: It occurred to me that there may be a practical way to spin this when getting software requirements. For example, you could simply ask, "Is <some quality or feature or behavior> important?" Ir you could phrase it as an assertion: "OK, so I'm assuming that <some quality or feature or behavior> is not important." Or some variation. I wonder if that difference in phrasing leads to getting better details. That is, in what way does how you phrase something (question or assertion, positive or negative) push a response in one direction or another?

brandnewlow 13y ago
I use this approach to get my team to pick a place to eat lunch often. When no one has a strong feeling about where we should go, I suggest a visit to the local McDonald's. Ideas begin pouring forth almost immediately.
- rooster8 13y ago
  Lots of good discussion on that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5635461 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5635461
- jebblue 13y ago
  McDonalds's fish sandwiches can't be beaten. That is a fact.
  - DigitalJack 13y ago
    While they are good, who in their right mind puts cheese on fried fish?
    - staunch 13y ago
      The real question is "Why no bacon?"
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
SectioAurea 13y ago
I am convinced that the entire badBIOS story is an application of this technique to shake out remaining bugs in the design. Look at the large number of subject matter experts who dissected every aspect of the claims and universally concluded... "Impossible unless [expert explanation of method] ...and even so, unlikely."
NAFV_P 13y ago
RTFM is elitist bullshit that really f\a*cks me off. Stern's technique is very adept at breaking this code of silence. Here is a paraphrased example of youtube: Troll: "HTML is a programming language" Gullible douchebag: "%s" % wikipedia_article_on_HTML Troll: "Troll successful"
alan_cx 13y ago
100% agree. Get the info you want by being wrong. People simply cant wait to correct you. Its such a simple manipulation, its actually quite sad. Works all over, not just usenet. Further, what it really depressing is that often, if you simply ask the question, many usenet replies will be "google it" (1) type answers. So, you go to a NG which is for a subject, you ask about that subject, and people there think you should already know the answer before going to the place meant to discuss it. (1)Used to be "google is your friend", but oddly enough, I dont see that so much these days.
specialist 13y ago
I've done this gathering requirements, getting acceptance (PR, release notes, tech docs, UI designs), problem solving, etc. Make up something plausible, but wrong, and label it "final proof" with a deadline two days away. This technique works a little bit like adding a duck (Battle Chess reference). Works for me because I care more about winning than being right, so I'm not embarrassed to be wrong. Lot's of reasons people withhold information for whatever reason. Most geeks are introverts, so are reluctant to speak up. Some people don't want to be embarrassed. Many, many aren't aware of what they know. It's easier to criticize than to create. And, yes, some people are gate keepers, hoarding information.
wdr1 13y ago
This is also a common social engineering trick. If you ask someone for their password, alarm bells usually go off. However, if you tell someone their password is XYZ, they'll potentially correct you (esp. if there's some degree of trust) and tell you it's ABC. I remember reading Mitnick used this trick a fair bit.

brandnewlow 13y ago

I use this approach to get my team to pick a place to eat lunch often. When no one has a strong feeling about where we should go, I suggest a visit to the local McDonald's. Ideas begin pouring forth almost immediately.

rooster8 13y ago
Lots of good discussion on that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5635461 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5635461
jebblue 13y ago
McDonalds's fish sandwiches can't be beaten. That is a fact.
- DigitalJack 13y ago
  While they are good, who in their right mind puts cheese on fried fish?
  - staunch 13y ago
    The real question is "Why no bacon?"
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]

SectioAurea 13y ago

I am convinced that the entire badBIOS story is an application of this technique to shake out remaining bugs in the design. Look at the large number of subject matter experts who dissected every aspect of the claims and universally concluded... "Impossible unless [expert explanation of method] ...and even so, unlikely."

NAFV_P 13y ago

RTFM is elitist bullshit that really f\a*cks me off. Stern's technique is very adept at breaking this code of silence. Here is a paraphrased example of youtube: Troll: "HTML is a programming language" Gullible douchebag: "%s" % wikipedia_article_on_HTML Troll: "Troll successful"

alan_cx 13y ago

100% agree. Get the info you want by being wrong. People simply cant wait to correct you. Its such a simple manipulation, its actually quite sad. Works all over, not just usenet. Further, what it really depressing is that often, if you simply ask the question, many usenet replies will be "google it" (1) type answers. So, you go to a NG which is for a subject, you ask about that subject, and people there think you should already know the answer before going to the place meant to discuss it. (1)Used to be "google is your friend", but oddly enough, I dont see that so much these days.

specialist 13y ago

I've done this gathering requirements, getting acceptance (PR, release notes, tech docs, UI designs), problem solving, etc. Make up something plausible, but wrong, and label it "final proof" with a deadline two days away. This technique works a little bit like adding a duck (Battle Chess reference). Works for me because I care more about winning than being right, so I'm not embarrassed to be wrong. Lot's of reasons people withhold information for whatever reason. Most geeks are introverts, so are reluctant to speak up. Some people don't want to be embarrassed. Many, many aren't aware of what they know. It's easier to criticize than to create. And, yes, some people are gate keepers, hoarding information.

wdr1 13y ago

This is also a common social engineering trick. If you ask someone for their password, alarm bells usually go off. However, if you tell someone their password is XYZ, they'll potentially correct you (esp. if there's some degree of trust) and tell you it's ABC. I remember reading Mitnick used this trick a fair bit.