On Dec 1, 2008, at 1:00 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
David Shaw wrote:
I think that last question is irrelevant, as it follows from the
"doesn't trust versions that Phil hasn't worked on", which makes it
derived from a false premise. It does not matter whether Phil has
worked on 7.0 and later, or indeed any version of PGP, because Phil
being involved does not ipso facto cause PGP to be good (for whatever
value of "good" you like).
Warning to all: I am going to be even more blunt and direct than
usual.
If my usual level bothers you, as I know it does for some people, you
may wish to just hit 'delete' and move on.
It does if your definition of "good" is "Phil Z. worked on it."
I agree that the axiom is crazy, but it doesn't do much good to tell
someone "your axiom is crazy, change it" if they're not capable of
either (a) understanding why their axiom is crazy or (b) how to apply
their new axioms in a consistent way.
In my experience it works better to say "well, assuming /arguendo/
that
you're right and nothing non-PRZ related should be trusted, why aren't
you trusting these things PRZ is involved in?". That gets people
thinking logically and critically about how their policy decisions
evolve from their axioms. Once they have some experience at critical
thinking with respect to trust, then it's time to say "so, if we were
going to draft new axioms from scratch, what should they be and why?"
I fully agree that the axiom is somewhere between "crazy" and "grossly
misinformed." Unfortunately, in my experience the overwhelming
majority
of users don't understand trust, don't want to understand trust, and
run
away screaming when asked to think about trust in a logical manner.
You
have to bring them to rationality slowly and in infinitesimally
small doses.
I strongly disagree. Explaining to them that PRZ was present for
other versions of PGP feeds their "grossly misinformed" world view.
It's not a "small dose" of reality: it's an irrelevant (despite being
factual) statement that just corroborates their misunderstanding.
This leaves them with the belief that their understanding was correct
all along, and thus makes the situation worse. How much harder is it
to bring reality to a situation once someone has "fed" the
misunderstanding?
I've had my share of conversations with the PGP True Believers over
the past 10 years. After much painful experience, the method that has
always worked best for me is to state:
1) This is reality. Full stop.
2) I will help you understand why this is true if you want me to (but
if you aren't interested, that's fine too).
3) If you keep doing what you're doing, you're going to break
something. Usually this only hurts you, but sometimes you can hurt
people other than yourself.
4) Keep this up long enough, and you will isolate yourself. Nobody
will be able to communicate with you reliably. That tends to resolve
statement #3.
David
_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
