So it is much more powerful to use a certain element of random ambiguity. John Boyd loved to tell a story about a group of German troops who were retreating from Normandy. Seeking to confuse the Allies, they began reversing every road sign they came across. The Americans following in their path realized after a few such errors that all the signs were reversed and just began to do the opposite of what the signs said. The point of the story is that certain deception is no deception at all. It would have been much more effective, Boyd said, had the Germans only reversed a third or a quarter of the signs. Then the Americans would have had to double check every turn.
Poker offers an interesting analogy to this. What's a bluff in poker? When you play strong even though you think or know you don't have the cards. The trick is that over many hands, your opponents will eventually call many big bets or bold plays. If they call your bluff enough, they will know most of your big plays are bluffs. To introduce uncertainty then, you can't bluff that often, and most of your strong plays have to be based on real cards. Then your opponents will have to allow for the possibility that you are telling the truth.
There is also an element of this in random searches at airports. While you might think it possible to get something past the general inspections, there is always the chance that you will randomly get tagged for the more thorough searches.
I have often wondered at an application of this principle to the spokespeople for companies, organisations, movements, etc. If you always tell the truth, you may sooner or later have to tell an unpleasant truth. This may lead you to try to avoid a question. If this isn't artfully done, you may end up drawing more attention to the very thing you are trying to conceal. If you flat out say you aren't going to answer, you have the same problem as pleading the 5th. On the other hand, if you are willing to lie (as say, most big companies are willing to do), you will use a lie to cover an unpleasant truth. But when the truth comes out, as it often does (Enron anyone? Baseball steroids, Bear Stearns, Savings and Loan scandal, payola, quiz shows, etc.), your reputation for truthfulness is tarnished and now your opponents and concerned citizens will know if there's a suspected wrongdoing and you're reporting all is well, they will start to investigate. In other words, your lie has lost its power. (To return to the poker example, you have to tell the truth the majority of the time, or lying is not just ineffective, but counterproductive.)
In either case (trying to be truthful or willing to lie), the more powerful position is to not answer all questions, but to set aside a small percentage (1 in 10? 1 in 20?) and simply not answer them of the basis of creating ambiguity.
tags: opsec, disclaimer, history
2 comments:
This is an interesting posting and the very first fb blog item I have read. This gives me some early respect for yet one more way to communicate in an already endless universe of ways.
I can tell you from personal observation and experience that random ambiguity is a very effective means of leadership. As a leader, one must be likable, and loyal, and sincere; throw in random ambiguity and a leader must add a few personal characteristics.
1. A short memory. Blow up at someone and forget it quickly and become loyal again, even in a job terminating situation. The leader who keeps grudges builds trouble.
2. Evenly distribute randomness sometimes focusing on someone close and sometimes on someone with remote connection.
3. Make randomness into teaching moments.
4. Likability factor requirement drops some by using randomness.
Something I have heard and seen and believe. Leadership is a form of power. Power is never given, only taken.
I have to again disagree with your assertion that power is always taken. It is given often - every time there is an election. Much more often, it is given every time someone watches television and decides not to think for themselves. They give power to whatever windbag happens to be speaking.
Post a Comment