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](https://infovores.substack.com/p/context-is-that-which-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](/exemption-outsourcing)
- From [Ruminating on read receipts](/read-receipts): "Except in psychopath ex or dysfunctional family circumstances, I believe turning off read receipts does a person more harm than good."
- [Death Grips - Giving Bad People Good Ideas](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvxkEvM81tU)