Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Earthquake Damage]

Befehl ist befehl.
I'm not going to argue the point and it's not really relevant here (or on topic) but soldiers actually do have to reflect a little over their orders. If the order is illegal it's also illegal to follow it.

Cue Jessup for at least the third time in as many weeks.

[SalmonGod]

The notion that we need people to serve those in power unquestionably to the point of committing crimes against humanity on command without blinking is extremely dangerous and quite frankly insane.  Is there no place for integrity and compassion in your world?

If all participants in conflict thought critically about their actions, we might actually be able to resolve something once in a while.  If our mode of operation is "Kill when told.  Don't say a word." we'll never ever get anywhere.  Those in power can waste lives freely for as long as they want without a care.

Bradley Manning is a hero.  He sacrificed for personal integrity.  If everyone had the critical mind and the will to do what he's done, the world would be a much much better place.

[ed boy]

I do a bit of coxing. For those of you not familiar with rowing, I sit in the back of a boat and steer it, while coaching/motivating the rowers. During race situations, I can't always be honest about how we are doing. If we're in a race and the other team is ahead of us and it looks like they'll probably win, I won't just say "It looks like they've got this in the bag", I've got to tell them to keep on rowing. There is always a chance that the other team will screw up. If they screw up, we will only be able to take advantage of it properly if our rowers have been going at it.

The above can be summarised as such:
In the situation we are racing with another boat and they are pulling ahead, I can either say one of two things:
-That they're faster and it looks like we won't win it
-That we're gaining on them and we just need to row a little harder to get the win
The first statement is a the truth and the second is false. However, if I say the first then the following happens:
-The rowers do not feel confident about the race
-Even if they do not make a conscious descision about it, they will stop rowing harder
-If the other team screws up, we will be less able to take advantage of it
The I say the second, then:
-The rowers carry on rowing hard
-Although it is more unpleasant for them, this is a temporary thing
-If the other team messes up, we will be able to take advantage of the situation

If I tell the truth, then we are less likely to win (which is the whole point of the race). If I lie, then the rowers have a harder time rowing. However, this is a very temporary effect. Lying also makes us more likely to win. Therefore, in this situation, lying is the better course of action.

When I cox a boat of rowers, I am in a position of authority. Although I am not putting any effort into the propulsion of the boat, I am directing the efforts of the rowers as I see fit. The rowers face the stern of the boat, while I face the bow, giving me an information advantage over them, which I use. Under maritime law, I am the master of the vessel.

It is not enjoyable to row as hard as you can - it is tiring, unpleasant and at times painful. Rowers are not inclined to do so unless they think the outcome of the race is dependent on it - the more dependant they are, the harder they are inclined to row. As a cox, I must get the rowers to do what they do not want to in order to increase our chances of winning. If each rower were to think critically about what I'm saying and drawing their own conclusions, then we would not be as good a boat as we could be.

There is a time and a place for independent thinking, and rowing in a race is not such a place. I put it to you that the military is another such place.

[Virex]

Is there no place for integrity and compassion in your world?

What do we even use those for anyway?

[SalmonGod]

Or you can remind your rowers that people make mistakes, and the best wins are those made by virtue of persistance against incredible odds.  Achieve the same effect without lying.  If it doesn't work at first, make damn sure they know it when they lose a race because they weren't persistent.  They won't make the same mistake again.

This isn't about trying hard anyway.  Allow me to make the analogy more relevant.

You have a ton of secret sponsorship deals riding on this race.  Your teammates don't know it, but you're going to make a lot of money if you win and they're not.  You tell them to sabotage competitor's boats, stalk them into secluded places and break their arms, and threaten their families.  You let them know that if they ever make these strategies known beyond the members of the team, that more loyal members will seek them out and execute them.

When one of the members of your team reports your actions, are you going to demand they be arrested for demoralizing your team and jeopardizing their chances at the race?  Or maybe you'd justify that if you didn't do these things first, the other team would?  Would you expect anyone to take you seriously?

What do we even use those for anyway?

Making life worth living for each other and dying without shame and regrets?

[Sir Pseudonymous]

That's not "making the analogy more relevant", that's "making up random conspiracies about DEM GUBMINTS AND DEYS EVILZ!"

[ed boy]

Or you can remind your rowers that people make mistakes, and the best wins are those made by virtue of persistance against incredible odds.  Achieve the same effect without lying.  If it doesn't work at first, make damn sure they know it when they lose a race because they weren't persistent.  They won't make the same mistake again.

You would do that after the race, certainly, but that just wouldn't work during the race. When they're rowing, they're in no position to contemplate the virtues of persistence, and if they can it's a sign that they're not rowing anywhere near as hard as they could be.

There is, of course, a second school of thought that you should stick by your lies in order to try and maintain the illusion of integrity (it is the illusion that is important for motivating them) to avoid sabotaging subsequent outings.

That's the problem with leading people. In order to do it best, you have to be infallible, even though you are not. As it turns out, though, the illusion of infallibility counts for an awful lot.

This isn't about trying hard anyway.  Allow me to make the analogy more relevant.

That's applying concepts from one situation and trying to apply it to others.

[Phmcw]

That's not "making the analogy more relevant", that's "making up random conspiracies about DEM GUBMINTS AND DEYS EVILZ!"

Because the charges gainst Assagne are not bogus, Bradley manning is fine, the war in Irak wasn't insanely costly, blackwater is a normal bodyguard society, ...
Honestly, conspiracy... you'll grow out of this mania of seeing conspiracy everywhere, just like you'll grow out your thirst for justice and equity. Yay for "pragmatism".

You would do that after the race, certainly, but that just wouldn't work during the race. When they're rowing, they're in no position to contemplate the virtues of persistence, and if they can it's a sign that they're not rowing anywhere near as hard as they could be.

There is, of course, a second school of thought that you should stick by your lies in order to try and maintain the illusion of integrity (it is the illusion that is important for motivating them) to avoid sabotaging subsequent outings.

That's the problem with leading people. In order to do it best, you have to be infallible, even though you are not. As it turns out, though, the illusion of infallibility counts for an awful lot.

Yes, but the trick is that the rowers are supposed to elect the best captain. And they want to know if he's really competent, or just spouting bullshit.

If you throw out the one that unveil your lies, not only are you a bad coach, but you are an horrible person too.

Last thing, cohesion of the team is not exactly as important if you use a world leading team to the world cup (america in WW2) or against the amical of paraplegic toddlers (war in Irak) and if you loose in the second race, while doping your athletes, then there is definitely a problem with you as a coach.

Last thing, this loyalty to the team before loyalty to the truth certainly killed innocent at war, but I'm pretty sure that it killed innocent in sport (now, now, just take you pill with the other before the race. You won't tell anyone, you wouldn't betray the team would you?).

[SalmonGod]

You would do that after the race, certainly, but that just wouldn't work during the race. When they're rowing, they're in no position to contemplate the virtues of persistence, and if they can it's a sign that they're not rowing anywhere near as hard as they could be.

Or do it before the race, and then it's never an issue.  Training an athlete to be driven is every bit as important as training bodies and skills. 

Honestly, that's the #1 thing that I learned from athletics.  Self-discipline.  To be persistent by conquering my own impulses which will always tell me to do what is easiest, not what is wisest.

That's the problem with leading people. In order to do it best, you have to be infallible, even though you are not. As it turns out, though, the illusion of infallibility counts for an awful lot.

Until the illusion is broken, at which point the leader who is capable of admitting mistakes and lays out situations plainly and honestly is much better off.

This isn't about trying hard anyway.  Allow me to make the analogy more relevant.

That's applying concepts from one situation and trying to apply it to others.

The concept still has to be persistent.

[ed boy]

You would do that after the race, certainly, but that just wouldn't work during the race. When they're rowing, they're in no position to contemplate the virtues of persistence, and if they can it's a sign that they're not rowing anywhere near as hard as they could be.

There is, of course, a second school of thought that you should stick by your lies in order to try and maintain the illusion of integrity (it is the illusion that is important for motivating them) to avoid sabotaging subsequent outings.

That's the problem with leading people. In order to do it best, you have to be infallible, even though you are not. As it turns out, though, the illusion of infallibility counts for an awful lot.

Yes, bu the trick is that the rowers are supposed to elect the best captain. And they want to know if he's really competent, or just spouting bullshit.

If you throw out the one that unveil your lies, not only are you a bad coach, but you are an horrible person too.

The cox is a seperate position from the captain. I was never elected, nor do I know any coxes who have been (admittedly, at my boat club there is a shortage of coxes).

Exposing somebody's lies destroys their reputation for infallibility, especially if you do not supply the reason for lying. Thankfully in coxing the reasons for lying are easy to be deduced when you are shown to be lying, so exposing them does not cause so much damage. In other areas, the reasons for lying are not easy to see, especially when the lies are taken out of context.

To give an example of a lie taken out of context, my neighbours have been telling horrible lies to their children. They say that there is some mysterious being who lives in one of the most remote parts of the world, yet still manages to observe them constantly. He methodically compares their actions and tries to match them to an arbitrary moral code. In a little more than a week, he will be rewarding those who stick by this arbitrary code and withholding gifts from those that do not.

If someone is destroying your reputation for infallibility, they are making your leadership less effective, and the team as a whole will suffer. Letting them do that unopposed would make me a bad leader.

This isn't about trying hard anyway.  Allow me to make the analogy more relevant.

That's applying concepts from one situation and trying to apply it to others.

The concept still has to be persistent.

Let us denote the positive real numbers as P and the negative real numbers as N.
The axiom "If a and b are elements of the set, then ab is also an element of the set" applies to P.
What you are saying is akin to saying "the axiom must apply to N as well, since it is true for P and both N and P kinds of real numbers".
The example I gave was about decieving people you have authority over. The situation you gave involved decieving people you do not have authority over.

That's the problem with leading people. In order to do it best, you have to be infallible, even though you are not. As it turns out, though, the illusion of infallibility counts for an awful lot.

Until the illusion is broken, at which point the leader who is capable of admitting mistakes and lays out situations plainly and honestly is much better off.

If the illusion is broken, then you can't maintain it, so there's no point trying.

[Sowelu]

There are different types and sizes of lies.  Yeah, they're all there to manipulate, but not all of them are so harmful really.  Sometimes, it's not so bad to be memetically programmed.  You can recognize during or after the fact that it improved your life or performance.  Hell, sometimes lies are more like 'suspension of disbelief'.  I'd argue that, in the example of racing, encouraging your team that they still have a good shot of winning (when it's actually quite remote) is actually an act of suspension of disbelief.  And just like watching a movie, nobody likes the guy who sits up and calls it out on its BS.  Certainly the other rowers wouldn't appreciate that guy.  They appreciate that memetic programming, since it falls in line with their own objectives.

[ed boy]

Precisely. I have had the rowers telling me to lie to them, saying that they have much more of a chance then they actually do.

[Leafsnail]

EDIT: Wrong thread, I guess.

[SalmonGod]

The situation you gave involved decieving people you do not have authority over.

As does the real life situation the analogy is supposed to relate to.  It also involves using others for personal gain and acting violently towards anyone who opposes you.  If your analogy doesn't take these things into account, it isn't relevant.

Precisely. I have had the rowers telling me to lie to them, saying that they have much more of a chance then they actually do.

What if it was very questionable whether the lies you told your rowers were actually in their best interests, and they were outraged when they found out about these lies?  Would you still defend the justifiability of those lies?  What about the person who exposed those lies?

[Eugenitor]

Oh wow. I shouldn't have even clicked into this thread, I really didn't intend to reply, but the last time I saw this kind of power dynamic, I was watching "Well-oiled Daddy Spanks Naughty Leather Boys, Vol. 5".

Needing to tell a presumably trained professional lies and bullshit just for him to do his job? What's that person even doing there, then? If you need to feed the business end of your organization a lot of crap in order to keep the system going, whatever you're engaged in probably isn't worth doing to begin with.

And if what you're doing has so thoroughly disgusted your staff that they start backstabbing you without regard to what might happen to them, you really need to re-evaluate what your goals are.

You need to do this shit in rowing? You're all there for the same reason, right? If you can't trust your crew to work together at your direction, and your crew can't trust you to get them across the finish line as fast as possible, then you might as well just bow out- you've already lost.

Unless you really just like abuse and humiliation, in which case I have some videos for you...