Message-ID:

Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over. -- Frank Zappa

devel / comp.theory / Interviewing for Jobs: Thwarting Efforts to Damage Your Professional Brand

Hi everyone,

For some reason, this very neat YouTube video containing advice from a lawyer on how to deal with cops who might ask you questions you don't like during speeding ticket encounters showed up on my YouTube videos list today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpk2CsikZE8

This video inspired me to think of a neat history-driven approach to not allowing adversarial actors to negatively influence your professional brand with smears or other fabrications about you. My idea, which might be exactly what the video author who is a lawyer thought of herself, is applicable to any "private interview or encounter with someone you don't totally trust."

Basically, the idea is, if someone such as a job interviewer wants to interact with you in private, I argue that you shouldn't provide the interviewer with true facts about you that could be used more or less verbatim to help the interviewer weave a web of lies about you. In the example in the video, which I encourage you to watch, the lawyer urges pulled over speeding ticket suspects not to give police too much information about certain details.. I myself would argue that these "historically indisputable" details about you could be used by crooked police to weave a false narrative about you, even if you weren't doing anything illegal. Furthermore, you would likely never be able to access the police records about you and what has been said about you and perhaps quietly shared with key community members known to the police about you, leading to decreased control over your reputation--unless of course you want to repeat your exact encounter with the police and defend yourself in a public place, like on Facebook.

Of course, some police and job interviewers mean well and are worth interacting with--in the case of job interviews, you might get a job. Basically, I'm arguing that you don't want to go into a job interview sharing information that the interviewer could use to craft a "false yet compelling work of historical fiction about you that is partly based on genuine primary sources." In other words, in your interview, you should volunteer answers to questions about well-known and low-brand-damage-potential facts about yourself, but you should avoid sharing "primary source gems" in private that could be twisted and turned against you, even in the absence of your consent or invitation to such dishonest actions. If a hypothetical fabricator is very talented, he or she might present a narrative that makes you yourself cringe, based on it sounding highly defensible and plausible in spite of containing wild exaggerations/distortions, being essentially a pack of (mostly) lies, and presenting you in a completely false light.

Possible economic and other consequences for the perpetrator aside, you still don't want to risk that kind of damage to your professional brand. That is why you should be very careful about what kind of disclosure you make about yourself in private settings where not everyone can see the creation of the "primary source," in general too.

Happy holidays. Thanks in particular to every law-abiding US citizen who is being or has been productive in the present or in the past! The future is a great time to be productive, too!

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 8:38:56 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> For some reason, this very neat YouTube video containing advice from a lawyer on how to deal with cops who might ask you questions you don't like during speeding ticket encounters showed up on my YouTube videos list today:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpk2CsikZE8
>
> This video inspired me to think of a neat history-driven approach to not allowing adversarial actors to negatively influence your professional brand with smears or other fabrications about you. My idea, which might be exactly what the video author who is a lawyer thought of herself, is applicable to any "private interview or encounter with someone you don't totally trust.."
>
> Basically, the idea is, if someone such as a job interviewer wants to interact with you in private, I argue that you shouldn't provide the interviewer with true facts about you that could be used more or less verbatim to help the interviewer weave a web of lies about you. In the example in the video, which I encourage you to watch, the lawyer urges pulled over speeding ticket suspects not to give police too much information about certain details. I myself would argue that these "historically indisputable" details about you could be used by crooked police to weave a false narrative about you, even if you weren't doing anything illegal. Furthermore, you would likely never be able to access the police records about you and what has been said about you and perhaps quietly shared with key community members known to the police about you, leading to decreased control over your reputation--unless of course you want to repeat your exact encounter with the police and defend yourself in a public place, like on Facebook.
>
> Of course, some police and job interviewers mean well and are worth interacting with--in the case of job interviews, you might get a job. Basically, I'm arguing that you don't want to go into a job interview sharing information that the interviewer could use to craft a "false yet compelling work of historical fiction about you that is partly based on genuine primary sources." In other words, in your interview, you should volunteer answers to questions about well-known and low-brand-damage-potential facts about yourself, but you should avoid sharing "primary source gems" in private that could be twisted and turned against you, even in the absence of your consent or invitation to such dishonest actions. If a hypothetical fabricator is very talented, he or she might present a narrative that makes you yourself cringe, based on it sounding highly defensible and plausible in spite of containing wild exaggerations/distortions, being essentially a pack of (mostly) lies, and presenting you in a completely false light.
>
> Possible economic and other consequences for the perpetrator aside, you still don't want to risk that kind of damage to your professional brand. That is why you should be very careful about what kind of disclosure you make about yourself in private settings where not everyone can see the creation of the "primary source," in general too.
>
> Happy holidays. Thanks in particular to every law-abiding US citizen who is being or has been productive in the present or in the past! The future is a great time to be productive, too!
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

Hi everyone,

I have some more thoughts to share regarding the idea of "Fighting Defamation"--what do you do when someone who claims to be a credible source lies about you and you find out about it?

Of course, efforts to insult you professionally can damage your career. Such efforts are definitely unfair, and, I argue, illegal under defamation laws (I think it is a civil offense--slander or libel) when such claims made about you are untrue. Truth is a defense for defamation, I've heard, but incorrect statements, including lies about you, are not OK to articulate in the US.

What can you do when a nefarious actor, perhaps one who claims to be "extremely powerful and trustworthy," lies about you, in public or elsewhere, and you're presented with the false assertion about you?

The first thing I would say is: If the assertion is true, take accountability for it in your own mind, and consider trying to work on the geunine bad characteristic or historical event that made you look bad. You can defend yourself or apologize with true words if you want to.

The second thing I would say is: If the assertion is false, LOOK FOR KEY TRAITS OF AND HISTORICAL MIS-DEEDS BY YOUR ADVERSARY. If someone has made up lies about you, this is a person who is not a customer or professional with a serious and possibly constructive criticism about how you do your job or whatever else better--this person is instead a law-breaking "jackal" of sorts who wants to break the rules to hurt you. Find the worst traits about this person and genuinely prove that the person has the traits--my advice (for dealing with the dishonest only) which is not kind and not guaranteed to help you is "don't definitely hold back" and follow all laws/rules. In my opinion--remember that I'm not a lawyer, just a citizen with an opinion, and my advice is provided as my opinion (I can't guarantee that it will definitely help you, although I assert truthfully that I would be fine with following my own advice)...you're encouraged to consult with a real-life US lawyer to discuss my ideas and others if you want to--the best thing you can do is present a 100% honest critique of the person who has made up lies about you.

The person who has attacked you with lies is, I argue, in a sense "challenging you to a debate about the truth." In one sense, by presenting fabricated evidence, your adversary is inadvertently making it easy for you to win this debate, at least in theory--a clear-communication courtroom showdown would likely result in the liar getting openly caught during cross-examination, which will make your attacker less likely to want to wind up in court and under oath. I read somewhere that in civil cases, neither side has the right to remain silent--not even the sued defending party on the stand. Everyone must tell the truth when asked questions on the witness stand, or so I have read.

Anyway, my point is that the best thing you can do is look for big examples of "bad character" on the part of your accuser. Keeping in mind that blackmail, extortion, stalking, and invasion of privacy are illegal, consider trying to legally find out the answers to these questions: Has your accuser lied before when it mattered? Has your accuser used lots of illegal drugs? Has your accuser falsely accused someone of something before? Is your accuser known to be racist or dishonest? Has your accuser stalked vulnerable people before? Is your accuser happily linked to any well-known organizations that are desperate money-seeking anti-Democratic pro-crime organizations? Without invading your unjust reputation attacker's privacy, can you think of a good way to negatively and accurately frame your adversary's attacks on you or role in public life, etc., in a way that makes the person's lies seem very clearly motivated by bad reasons (and clearly dishonest and not true)? Ideally, when you can state a clear, non-subtle, and very "blunt" or straightforward case about why someone might be smearing you and what sort of person that person really is and can be proven to be, based on indisputable evidence, you can thwart defamation efforts taken against you. Remember, NEVER START LYING YOURSELF, or you will cast doubt on your own reputation and invite skepticism from people who might not want to trust you.

Again, I'm just a citizen stating unproved and un-guaranteed advice...please free to think about it and talk to a lawyer or someone else you think you can trust!

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 8:38:56 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > For some reason, this very neat YouTube video containing advice from a lawyer on how to deal with cops who might ask you questions you don't like during speeding ticket encounters showed up on my YouTube videos list today:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpk2CsikZE8
> >
> > This video inspired me to think of a neat history-driven approach to not allowing adversarial actors to negatively influence your professional brand with smears or other fabrications about you. My idea, which might be exactly what the video author who is a lawyer thought of herself, is applicable to any "private interview or encounter with someone you don't totally trust."
> >
> > Basically, the idea is, if someone such as a job interviewer wants to interact with you in private, I argue that you shouldn't provide the interviewer with true facts about you that could be used more or less verbatim to help the interviewer weave a web of lies about you. In the example in the video, which I encourage you to watch, the lawyer urges pulled over speeding ticket suspects not to give police too much information about certain details. I myself would argue that these "historically indisputable" details about you could be used by crooked police to weave a false narrative about you, even if you weren't doing anything illegal. Furthermore, you would likely never be able to access the police records about you and what has been said about you and perhaps quietly shared with key community members known to the police about you, leading to decreased control over your reputation--unless of course you want to repeat your exact encounter with the police and defend yourself in a public place, like on Facebook.
> >
> > Of course, some police and job interviewers mean well and are worth interacting with--in the case of job interviews, you might get a job. Basically, I'm arguing that you don't want to go into a job interview sharing information that the interviewer could use to craft a "false yet compelling work of historical fiction about you that is partly based on genuine primary sources." In other words, in your interview, you should volunteer answers to questions about well-known and low-brand-damage-potential facts about yourself, but you should avoid sharing "primary source gems" in private that could be twisted and turned against you, even in the absence of your consent or invitation to such dishonest actions. If a hypothetical fabricator is very talented, he or she might present a narrative that makes you yourself cringe, based on it sounding highly defensible and plausible in spite of containing wild exaggerations/distortions, being essentially a pack of (mostly) lies, and presenting you in a completely false light.
> >
> > Possible economic and other consequences for the perpetrator aside, you still don't want to risk that kind of damage to your professional brand. That is why you should be very careful about what kind of disclosure you make about yourself in private settings where not everyone can see the creation of the "primary source," in general too.
> >
> > Happy holidays. Thanks in particular to every law-abiding US citizen who is being or has been productive in the present or in the past! The future is a great time to be productive, too!
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have some more thoughts to share regarding the idea of "Fighting Defamation"--what do you do when someone who claims to be a credible source lies about you and you find out about it?
>
> Of course, efforts to insult you professionally can damage your career. Such efforts are definitely unfair, and, I argue, illegal under defamation laws (I think it is a civil offense--slander or libel) when such claims made about you are untrue. Truth is a defense for defamation, I've heard, but incorrect statements, including lies about you, are not OK to articulate in the US.
>
> What can you do when a nefarious actor, perhaps one who claims to be "extremely powerful and trustworthy," lies about you, in public or elsewhere, and you're presented with the false assertion about you?
>
> The first thing I would say is: If the assertion is true, take accountability for it in your own mind, and consider trying to work on the geunine bad characteristic or historical event that made you look bad. You can defend yourself or apologize with true words if you want to.
>
> The second thing I would say is: If the assertion is false, LOOK FOR KEY TRAITS OF AND HISTORICAL MIS-DEEDS BY YOUR ADVERSARY. If someone has made up lies about you, this is a person who is not a customer or professional with a serious and possibly constructive criticism about how you do your job or whatever else better--this person is instead a law-breaking "jackal" of sorts who wants to break the rules to hurt you. Find the worst traits about this person and genuinely prove that the person has the traits--my advice (for dealing with the dishonest only) which is not kind and not guaranteed to help you is "don't definitely hold back" and follow all laws/rules. In my opinion--remember that I'm not a lawyer, just a citizen with an opinion, and my advice is provided as my opinion (I can't guarantee that it will definitely help you, although I assert truthfully that I would be fine with following my own advice)...you're encouraged to consult with a real-life US lawyer to discuss my ideas and others if you want to--the best thing you can do is present a 100% honest critique of the person who has made up lies about you.
>
> The person who has attacked you with lies is, I argue, in a sense "challenging you to a debate about the truth." In one sense, by presenting fabricated evidence, your adversary is inadvertently making it easy for you to win this debate, at least in theory--a clear-communication courtroom showdown would likely result in the liar getting openly caught during cross-examination, which will make your attacker less likely to want to wind up in court and under oath. I read somewhere that in civil cases, neither side has the right to remain silent--not even the sued defending party on the stand. Everyone must tell the truth when asked questions on the witness stand, or so I have read.
>
> Anyway, my point is that the best thing you can do is look for big examples of "bad character" on the part of your accuser. Keeping in mind that blackmail, extortion, stalking, and invasion of privacy are illegal, consider trying to legally find out the answers to these questions: Has your accuser lied before when it mattered? Has your accuser used lots of illegal drugs? Has your accuser falsely accused someone of something before? Is your accuser known to be racist or dishonest? Has your accuser stalked vulnerable people before? Is your accuser happily linked to any well-known organizations that are desperate money-seeking anti-Democratic pro-crime organizations? Without invading your unjust reputation attacker's privacy, can you think of a good way to negatively and accurately frame your adversary's attacks on you or role in public life, etc., in a way that makes the person's lies seem very clearly motivated by bad reasons (and clearly dishonest and not true)? Ideally, when you can state a clear, non-subtle, and very "blunt" or straightforward case about why someone might be smearing you and what sort of person that person really is and can be proven to be, based on indisputable evidence, you can thwart defamation efforts taken against you. Remember, NEVER START LYING YOURSELF, or you will cast doubt on your own reputation and invite skepticism from people who might not want to trust you.
>
> Again, I'm just a citizen stating unproved and un-guaranteed advice...please free to think about it and talk to a lawyer or someone else you think you can trust!
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

Here are two more neat law-related YouTube videos about dealing with police departments and organizations that you don't trust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJz6hacAmDY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKLVjDojAVk

Some subjects covered in these two videos include:

- Why are the hostile organization members talking to me?
- Should I engage in small talk with with these members?
- What sort of information should I ask these members for, and what sort shouldn't I ask for?
- How can I avoid allowing a hostile organization member to gather evidence to establish my false full-timeframe customer/citizen satisfaction and/or false acceptance of how I've been treated?
- In general, how can I use internal rules of an organization and laws to figure out what I should say to protect my interests at organization that might mistreat me in the future?

As you can see, I've tried not to over-cover the info in the videos, so that you may still want to watch these two videos. One nice effect of the videos is that they provide a really good cautionary tale about working for firms that don't behave ethically or that try to do "extreme good-cop-and-bad-cop" routines to hurt customers by being deceptive about friendliness levels towards a customer...customers will sometimes start to never look at the employees of that firm the same way again. Following laws at work is extremely important.

Click here to read the complete article

Subject	Author
Interviewing for Jobs: Thwarting Efforts to Damage Your Professional Brand	B.H.
Interviewing for Jobs: Thwarting Efforts to Damage Your	B.H.
Interviewing for Jobs: Thwarting Efforts to Damage Your	B.H.
Interviewing for Jobs: Thwarting Efforts to Damage Your	M Kfivethousand