thread: 2012-12-07 : Positioning: Legitimacy and Occult Co-ownership

On 2012-12-09, Dan Maruschak wrote:

OK. I guess I read the focus on "objecting" in the original post as being about the capabilities of the black box rather than looking at the thinking/cognition that might lead to the objection (i.e. to me it seemed to be glossing over the "receive and process what was said" step by pointing at the thing they might do or say next after trying to process what was said).


This makes GcL go "If I understand at all"
which maybe I don't - "processesing" is where folks will decide if what was said is legitimate. In this post, we get reminded that when you speak, you definitionally don't know what the result of the processing will be - objecting is always available. But there are things a designer might do that reduce that chance ...

This makes GP go "Not just the designer"
It's also a matter of... strategy? Just like you place your knight there to support your tower before you actually move your tower when you're playing chess, you can pass a fact in your narration that will support another, more controversial fact later, to lessen the chances of objection.

This makes GcL go "Defintely not JUST"
And I'd say the strategy thing that is absolutely, totally true is best to work WITH in design, not against.

This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":




This reminds DM of Credibility Building Blocks

This reminds DM of Psychological Compliance Techniques