WOW. My favorite professor in school spent the first 5 days of the semester trying to drive home how fundamental it is to understand another's POV. This is so whats missing in most personal interaction these days. The real meaning of "walk a mile in his shoes" literally goes over 99% of peoples heads.
Have you ever thought about what people think of you? I don't mean like superficially, I just mean in general. What's crazy is you are literally a million different people to a million different people. The person you think you are in your head is NOT how people see you.
Jeez he talks fast. Setting playback speed to 0.75 I took notes and he made 4 points. 1. Discover people’s thoughts and priorities by making conversation all about them. 2. Seek their priorities about their dreams and aspirations by giving those things meaning. 3. Validate people and their opinions & choices. 4. Empower people’s choices to make them feel valued and inspired. Then he repeats it, drills it down and reiterates these 4 points.
you forget 2 points; 5th point: "if they're up for it". people could be not up for whatever it is you're about, and in that case you should just let go. 6th point: be consistent about them. people might need you to approach them every once in a while, in order to "give in" to you(how frequently? depends on the person). these were the 2 points most important for me, since I'm naturally a curious person that actually cares about people and what they have to inspire me(and practically anyone) with, and when I got to a certain point of diminishing returns, I couldn't quite understand why are people not responding to my honest interest anymore. Now I know; some people just aren't about your care for them, or u just need to be a bit more consistent, so u need to know which is which. I started feeling that change when I got to a certain age; around the late 20's. I would say, that's when people in general start becoming less approachable, though in some places they would become irrelevant(especially with the contemporary social media cancer).
The comment about not holding yesterday against you today.. there's an exception to the rule. There are people who will abuse that value. Dark triad personality traits are the exception. People with a pattern of bad or exploitative behaviours. These are the "in for my self/got mine f you" people, the domestic abusers, narcissists who refuse to work on themselves...
Does is sit uneasily with anyone else that "seeking healthy relationships" is just an amusing feat of linguistic acrobatics meant to reframe or humanize the concept of "getting what I want"?
I read a book when i was a kid that introduced the idea that there is a motive behind every interaction. Neurologically, we are always trying to achieve what we think is in our best interest, even if others believe it is unhealthy. Addiction is a great example: there are people who are convinced it is in their best interest to live in a tent downtown and shoot heroin. On the other hand are people like Christian evangelists in China, who also put their lives at risk to get what they want. If a junkie tries to entice the average person to shoot up with them, the junkie will likely hold the belief that there are better choices one could make in life. The evangelist, however, is convinced that what he is selling is an infinite amount of time in a place that is infinitely better than the present one. I think what the speaker is getting at is to examine one's motives until one has that level of conviction. If you actually believe you've got the best deal in town, it's easier to convince someone that they're better off for having met and agreed with you.
12:56 Type A people are the easiest to read. He really hated that he admitted to "false flags" while talking a mile a minute haha The only time he stuttered in this entire talk is when he haphazardly admitted to running them.
.."14 times in 21 years.." So basically, an average of one recruit every year and a half is considered exceptional. That's a lot of effort for a tiny number of people, it must be really worth it.
A lot of stories from the cold war center around the consequences of intelligence. Going further back, WWII is replete. Quick example; several groups of Panzers were kept from being deployed during D-Day thanks to a double agent.
I mean, you could make your whole career on just 1 recruit if you end up with a guy like Robert Hanssen. Also, you're getting someone to risk their lives and livelihood for you so it takes a lot of prior relationship building.
did anyone else picked up the vibe of.. i don't lie... but i don't tell you what you don't need to know. they want transparency because they want to know research points on yourself.
Yeah it's a subjective truth isn't it. "I don't lie, I don't apply subterfuge.... but everything I do is done in order to create the circumstances in which I achieve my ultimate goal.". Come on man.. how is that not deceit - an element of subterfuge? I think I get it; being able to arguably deny having lied is most likely because of legal reasons. But it seems like he's repeated this mantra to himself often enough that he honestly feels he's just having a conversation without deception. Having said that, of course it's naive to think that you can be working in counter-intelligence and be Mother Theresa at the same time. This dude knows his stuff, I'm thankful that he was able to share this with us!
Not really. I see it as mutually beneficial in a normal situation. His line of work was more one sided by nature. Applying this to every day life though, especially if you need to be the lead for your team, will be beneficial for all involved.
@@allooutrick8266 i don't agree with your point, but it may be the case. but nowhere in this presentation was defined what transparency really means and who will benefit from it.
@@allooutrick8266 I'm glad you brought up mutual benefit, as I feel that's the core of this talk. This man's line of work was highly specialized, but it can be generalized to selling something you believe in versus something you don't. If a team leader doesn't believe they are there to do what's right for the team, it is not a team and they are not leading it! The same principle applied to physical pentesting is to know that I am here to teach the company about security, and the best way to present my lesson is to illustrate some unfortunate shortcuts in thinking. That way you know that you are acting in a person's best interest when you exploit those shortcuts, because you are going to help them be mindful of that backdoor in case someone less scrupulous tries to take advantage of them.
Making it all about the person, building them up, inclusion, validating, verification, ect, the only problem with this, is certain people will know when someone is not real. They may not show it and play along for whatever reason but certain people can sense fakeness ... And sometimes you can never understand the person because you weren't born with what they were born with. You can walk in their shoes, but you can't rewire your brain to copy their synaptic connections. You can come closer than close, but original you never will be.
Well, getting somewhere in this field can be done without a real relationship with someone. The relationship can be parasocial, and with many - learning from books, videos, courses, all that good stuff - it can be pleasant and anonymous. That's the scary yet inspiring about this field of hacking, both humans and machines: you can be a nobody with a little curiosity and internet access - and in a few years you can rise to good competency and practice these things for good or not so good, depending on who you are and who you established first real relationships in the field with, or what's your position - if you're working alone with just your own resources.
Talks way too fast, needs to slow his roll. Sounds like a car salesman, tv preacher, or some such person trying to control you. People don't like slick talkers: if he talked slower with more sincerity it would make what he says much more meaningful, and him more trustworthy
@@glynnetolar4423 maybe you should start caring what more intelligent people think, Glynn. It might do you some good. Or you could just stay in your narcissistic dustbin…your choice.
Absolutely a marginal note, but since they were briefly mentioned I feel compelled to state so: Myers-Briggs type indicators are pseudoscientific nonsense.
Only because the test is not very good (not always repeatable with consistent results). But the cognitive function model itself is a valid way to abstract the way human information processing works if you keep in mind that everyone uses all of them, just with varying degrees of preference and competence. The confusion arises because people take some BS online test and read a type description and that’s it. But that leads to misunderstanding because 1. the system defines some terms differently than the colloquial use of those terms (like “introvert” and “extrovert”) and 2. People don’t understand the scope of what the system describes, either two narrow or too wide. It specifically defines modes of cognition and how that can affect behavioral tendencies.
there are only so many "novel" attack vectors going around. Some massive breaches have happened due to social engineering. SE is important to security and security is what DEFCON is about. All the fancy hardened/militarygrade/stateoftheart/insert_buzzword security systems will not help you if the attacker can compromise you through people.
@@kieransoregaard-utt8 Wow dude, do you have an original thought up there? Or just a bunch of sayings to spout. The previous posts appear to point to the latter. Have a nice life.
@@glynnetolar4423 no one asked you, Glynn. Your irrelevance is particularly palpable when you can’t even make a strong point. Try getting an actual life.
