On online psychopaths
Why giving good universal advice can be bad or I wish I could pre-filter psychopaths
In person, I tune advice to whoever I’m talking to, as advice is context-dependent. On the internet, advice I give is more universal and boring, as context is scarce.
And even the universal, boring advice has exceptions. “Just talk up people on the street” is a potentially life-changing activity, unless you’re socially awkward and/or considered creepy-looking. If you are unable to walk, “Take a long walk to clear your head” is useless.
The above examples are mostly harmless offenses, though. There’s a worse category: advice that becomes dangerous in the wrong hands — a.k.a. psychopaths.
“Look up which conferences someone attends and show up, people love to hear you came for them” is good networking advice. “Be persistent about meeting them, sending multiple follow-ups if you must, it usually works for me” is great communication advice. Both tips become stalking instructions for a psychopath.
This is a genuine problem. I’ve heard podcasters say they never discuss stalkers on air. Psychopaths are mimetic—talking about psychopathic acts motivates them.
So adding “unless you’re a psychopath” to advice doesn’t help. Even worse, it invites the psychopath. So you’re left with two options: don’t give advice, or give it knowing the wrong person might take it to heart.
Related
- The Exemption Outsourcing Pattern
- From Ruminating on read receipts: “Except in psychopath ex or dysfunctional family circumstances, I believe turning off read receipts does a person more harm than good.”