[ExI] Regarding Wickedness (was beowolf)

[Harvey Newstrom]

On Sunday 25 November 2007 02:26, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Don't forget the signaling effect of keeping the same subject
> line.  It can be read "I am too busy, and have far more
> important things to think about and to work on  than futzing
> with such details."  As Keith has remarked, so much we
> do is really about status.

Ha!  Sloppiness in thinking and acting is a sign of importance?  It doesn't 
suprise me.  It would explain a lot of our political "leaders".  But I always 
assumed that it was due to lack of ability.

> > which is a sentence in "truth mode".  An interesting question to me 
> has always been "how effective in changing the world can one be by
> remaining purely in truth mode?"

I believe that truth is very important in security matters.  This does not 
imply that we cannot keep secrets.  But one side-effect of misleading 
propaganda is that our side gets mislead also.  So while it might be a moral 
boost for us and a psychological attack on the enemy to exaggerate our 
capabilities, it also will lead the public and congress to cut funding 
because they don't think we need to develop any further technology if we are 
so advanced.  I think all such lies come back to bite the liar politically, 
and also mislead our own side into wasting resources due to inaccurate 
information.  

A case in point would be the misleading statements used to get us into the war 
in Iraq.  Maybe it was good to goad the country into supporting the war on 
terror.  But as a side-effect, we have wasted a lot of resources looking for 
WMD that the intelligence community knew didn't really exist.  An interesting 
question to me is whether the lies gained more or lost more in the long run.  
The other big side-effect is that other nations no longer trust our 
intelligence community (even though they got the information right and it was 
misrepresented later).  We may have won a battle but lost a larger war.

> Of parallel interest: Do enemies 
> gain an advantage when you refrain from hating them but they
> freely indulge in hating you?   Is there any place for hate in
> Extropianism?

I don't think so.  The sheer brute strength that anger brings only really 
helps in physical combat.  Where brains, planning, strategy, and logical 
thinking are required (as in modern warfare), such emotions only cloud the 
process rather than enhance it.

An example would be the current fad of calling terrorists "cowards".  This is 
merely an insulting phrase used to show our vehemence against them.  But it 
is not really based on any data that terrorists are cowards.  The reason this 
bothers me is that I believe our airline security against hijackers in the 
past were largely based on the assumptions that hijackers were cowards and 
would not risk their own life.  Therefore, our response plans stressed 
cooperation and not trying to regain control of the plane.  We expected them 
to land safely somewhere where we could more easily deal with them.  But if 
the hijackers are on a suicide mission, this plan is totally useless.  A 
simple assumption that the hijackers are cowards totally misleads the 
security analysis of the situation.  Likewise, I think all hatred or emotions 
cloud the thinking of such planning.  Revenge wants to be swift and severe.  
But this may interfere with better plans that are organized and precise.

> My own tentative answer to the first question is, "A person---or
> his or her civilization---maximizes effectiveness by alternating between
> truth-mode and partisan-mode", where the latter gives full vent
> to hatred of evil.

Can you give any examples of this?  I base all my security work on truth, and 
would never resort to emotionalism, jingoism, or propoganda to achieve my 
goals.  I even cringe at the concept of advertising and meme-engineering, 
because it so often strays from truth-mode.  I believe partisan-mode works in 
the short term because people don't think.  But I think it fails in the 
long-term when its results turn out to be temporary, and when more and more 
people question what is going on.  I would be interested in hearing 
counter-examples or theories behind the partisan-mode.

Also, do you see a resentment factor by the populace when they realize they 
have been manipulated or mislead into supporting a cause based on 
partisanship rather than truth?  Isn't there a backlash effect when this 
occurs, such that there is more (or at least some) damage later due to the 
partisanship that would not have occurred with truth-mode?

> My answer to the second question is this: "To remain analytical
> towards criminals and towards wrongdoing is itself criminal and
> wrong", (even though western civilzation in its descent to selfdestruction
> often, sadly, deems this attitude self-righteous and atavistic.)

I'm not sure  I understand what this means.  Are you saying we shouldn't be 
analytical towards criminals?  Or are you saying we shouldn't be *only* 
analytical at the expense of other responses?  I always assumed that even 
when not in truth-mode, that someone behind the scenes was still observing 
the truth and making analytical decisions.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom <www.harveynewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP