In my career, I've made the mistake of focusing on the arguments and decisions and tried to be 'blind' to the people. Meaning, I was trying to strip their individual biases as the levers and work their unique insights into the argument or decision.
However, I now realized that fails because those who focused on the people realized they'd manipulate the arguments and decisions their way no matter the nature of the argument or decision.
But that puts it in a bit of a Catch-22. I have to balance absolutely everything. In a way, I have to act exactly like that infiltrator, except I'm infiltrating the minds of my group in order to steer them in the direction I want them to take. But I HATE the idea that I'd be manipulating them like the infiltrators. The catch is, if I don't, the infiltrator will and will have no such compulsion.
So, how do I balance working to establish mutual trust, non-manipulation, while knowing that the 'enemy' will weaponize both?
I think the answer to your catch-22 is that the defender should be less concerned with steering people, and more concerned with protecting the conditions under which those folks can accurately orient. They're the same tools, though.
If I know that someone in my group desperately needs approval, I could do several things. But it comes down to using their currency to fund the transaction. You give me compliance, power, whatever *I* want, I give you validation. That's the evil version.
If I'm NOT an evil jerk, I can be honest with them when I see that need affecting their judgment, help them become aware of it, and build structures that make it harder for someone else to exploit that about them.
Great read Kit! This maps cleanly onto the interview room. Same three plays, smaller scale. A subject hands you two versions of the same timeline and lets you burn the session arguing with yourself about which one is real. They read which driver you lead with and shape the account to it. Tempo is the one most investigators miss. Flood the room with fresh detail and nobody circles back to the gap that actually mattered. The tell is always the same. Notice the moment you stopped working the inconsistency and started managing noise. I will be checking out your book Mission Command!
Well done Kit, this is great. Also people are promoting our book Mission Command.
In my career, I've made the mistake of focusing on the arguments and decisions and tried to be 'blind' to the people. Meaning, I was trying to strip their individual biases as the levers and work their unique insights into the argument or decision.
However, I now realized that fails because those who focused on the people realized they'd manipulate the arguments and decisions their way no matter the nature of the argument or decision.
But that puts it in a bit of a Catch-22. I have to balance absolutely everything. In a way, I have to act exactly like that infiltrator, except I'm infiltrating the minds of my group in order to steer them in the direction I want them to take. But I HATE the idea that I'd be manipulating them like the infiltrators. The catch is, if I don't, the infiltrator will and will have no such compulsion.
So, how do I balance working to establish mutual trust, non-manipulation, while knowing that the 'enemy' will weaponize both?
I think the answer to your catch-22 is that the defender should be less concerned with steering people, and more concerned with protecting the conditions under which those folks can accurately orient. They're the same tools, though.
If I know that someone in my group desperately needs approval, I could do several things. But it comes down to using their currency to fund the transaction. You give me compliance, power, whatever *I* want, I give you validation. That's the evil version.
If I'm NOT an evil jerk, I can be honest with them when I see that need affecting their judgment, help them become aware of it, and build structures that make it harder for someone else to exploit that about them.
It’s interesting because there’s no One Answer™ nor checklist to follow.
Great read Kit! This maps cleanly onto the interview room. Same three plays, smaller scale. A subject hands you two versions of the same timeline and lets you burn the session arguing with yourself about which one is real. They read which driver you lead with and shape the account to it. Tempo is the one most investigators miss. Flood the room with fresh detail and nobody circles back to the gap that actually mattered. The tell is always the same. Notice the moment you stopped working the inconsistency and started managing noise. I will be checking out your book Mission Command!