
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Here are eight tools of anti-epistemology that I think anyone can use to hide their norm-violating behavior from being noticed, and deceive people about their character.[1]
Heuristic Details1. Maintain Plausible Innocence
Always provide and maintain a plausibly deniable account of your behavior that isn’t norm violating
Kim Kitsuragi: “You want to send someone a message that the police are working for you.”
Evrart Claire: “I repeat, I’m a very, *very* busy man, Mr. Kitsuragi, and therefore I must occasionally enlist… outside help.” He turns back to you. “So what will it be, Harry?”
How: Never explicitly offer or ask to do something that's norm violating. Always communicate it in the subtext, while your explicit words are consistent with a narrative of good conduct / innocence.
Why: Whenever a third party tries to verify what was communicated, you have a coherent and accurate account of the explicit text of your words that is not the same as what was actually communicated, making it harder to prosecute your crimes. (Spiritually: "They've got nothing on me.")
It can also confuse the people you're actually talking to about the extent to which you intended what actually happened, and as to what your motives [...]
The original text contained 1 footnote which was omitted from this narration.
---
First published:
Source:
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
By LessWrongHere are eight tools of anti-epistemology that I think anyone can use to hide their norm-violating behavior from being noticed, and deceive people about their character.[1]
Heuristic Details1. Maintain Plausible Innocence
Always provide and maintain a plausibly deniable account of your behavior that isn’t norm violating
Kim Kitsuragi: “You want to send someone a message that the police are working for you.”
Evrart Claire: “I repeat, I’m a very, *very* busy man, Mr. Kitsuragi, and therefore I must occasionally enlist… outside help.” He turns back to you. “So what will it be, Harry?”
How: Never explicitly offer or ask to do something that's norm violating. Always communicate it in the subtext, while your explicit words are consistent with a narrative of good conduct / innocence.
Why: Whenever a third party tries to verify what was communicated, you have a coherent and accurate account of the explicit text of your words that is not the same as what was actually communicated, making it harder to prosecute your crimes. (Spiritually: "They've got nothing on me.")
It can also confuse the people you're actually talking to about the extent to which you intended what actually happened, and as to what your motives [...]
The original text contained 1 footnote which was omitted from this narration.
---
First published:
Source:
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

26,335 Listeners

2,455 Listeners

8,555 Listeners

4,176 Listeners

97 Listeners

1,608 Listeners

10,020 Listeners

97 Listeners

522 Listeners

5,522 Listeners

15,942 Listeners

554 Listeners

133 Listeners

93 Listeners

472 Listeners