Every system has two sets of rules: The rules as they are intended or commonly perceived, and the actual rules ("reality"). In most complex systems, the gap between these two sets of rules is huge.
i don't think it's possible to overstate just how true this is in the context of social/people hacking. the smaller the gap, the more effective your social/people skills will be.
My father worked in the non-profit sector for years before starting his own business. One of the best lessons he taught me was this: In any organization of sufficient size, there is the official power structure (the org chart) and the unofficial power structure (how things actually get done).
The trick is to find out what strings to pull and get things done. I've used that idea for years trying to get things done in my day job in health care.
In my experience, this is incredibly relevant in government, which depending on how you cut it is an organisation or group of organisations all of sufficient size.
Thanks Ed, surprising I never came across that quote before but it helps put an argument I've been trying to work through together better.
It's obscure but:
A subject within a system can't possibly have knowledge of all states within the same system, only an external perspective can see the true state of all things.
It's related to self perception, and maybe the limits of what we can understand about our universe.
And by Albert Einstein, I assume you mean "anonymous clever guy." This appears to be another modern attribution, although not entirely out of character.
Of course, and that's why there are so many of them: that's as much evidence as most people need, and he is the attribution sink for quotes about the power of intelligence.
It's very true that when you understand something that others don't - and see (more of) the underlying reality - you can do things that appear to be magic, not only to them but also to you. Unfortunately, as the deeper reality becomes more widely understood, it becomes the "commonly perceived" reality. And the magic goes away.
It's tough having to keep on finding the next impossible thing to do.
What had he done with his life, thought Louis Wu. He'd made no fundamental scientific discoveries, overthrown no governments, started no major religions.
To [mis]quote the Heart Sutra, "form is emptiness and emptiness is form." I've played with this a huge deal, and as far as I can tell the "true" reality really has no rules (and I've searched a lot). What we're really hacking is our own, and other people's minds. So the "perceived" rules are how everyone thinks everyone else's mind thinks, and the "real" rules is how everyone else's mind actually thinks.
What is wealth generation, but hacking people's minds to perceive something as valuable? Do Facebook, or Oracle, or even the internal combustion engine really have any "intrinsic" value?
There is no objective reality, I don't think. Just the inter-subjective. I still haven't figured out how to apply this knowledge to gain anything I perceive to be valuable, though...
Seems to me that value is just a perception, like any other perception. You can choose to perceive value or not. I think the startup phase titled, "Educating the Market" is a euphemism for, "Persuading other people to agree with you."
In the end when dealing person to person, (or business to consumer, b2b, its the same thing) its all just persuasion. Just persuading someone to give you money for something you've persuaded them gives them value. And if you're persuasive enough, they'll agree that it is valuable, convince themselves accordingly and be happy.
Its much more apparent when you convince yourself that you really need very few things in life to get by, and that most of what it takes comes from inside yourself (except for food, water & shelter).
It is easiest to convince others of the value of your product or service when they profit from your creation. Saving folks time and effort with efficiency is a driving force behind entrepreneurship.
As we pair down our own necessities we discover the core of our needs, and this discovery can help us share great value with others. Inspiring others has been a driving concern of mine, but I realized this only after quieting down the buzz of my own selfish needs.
Wonderful shared experiences and memories have become much more valuable to me.
I've found that many folks are very uncomfortable with the idea that there are no hard and fixed rules. Their must be an order, because their belief dictates it. I suppose I'm biased by a fascination in freedom, and infinite system complexity.
Sometimes we sink up and share a moment with others. This is true engagement. At other times we do our best to dissect the essence of something, whether it's code or a philosophical problem from each of our own perspectives.
When we discover an opening or opportunity, and share our perception with others we unlock value.
Perhaps there is blind value, in other words, "value" that drives a particular system in a direction which would be "considered" "positive" by the system if the system could postulate/predict/had awareness.
I would argue that is why humans have such a strong sense of good/bad (value judgements): because we postulate, predict, assess, think into the future.
Agreed. I thought the most spine tingling part of the trilogy was at the end of the second movie when Neo uses his powers in the real world. This is reminiscent of my own hacking experience, albiet far less dramatic, where successfully gaming the rules of one system gave me a whole new perspective and level of confidence to manipulate another system. It helps to broaden your horizons, so long as you eventually hone in on one thing and give it all you got.
I've often thought about this in the context of fiction. It seems that the hero in stories often wins because he out 'realities' the bad guy. I try to apply this to how I think about problem solving - but I find the hardest thing integrating all the wonderful knowledge I have and reality. When I knew a lot less I found it easier just see the reality, but I have so many more tools at my disposal now. Experience seems to help.
In the context of fiction, a good friend of mine (Eli) and myself both greatly enjoy rpg elements of breaking game systems in novel ways. There's a rush of levity when the whole thing comes apart. Maybe it's more rules lawyering than breaking per say, but identifying the essential flaws of a system is just as honest as recognizing it's strengths.
I often try to use similar logic to describe what I do as a programmer. I don't "fix" computers, I don't "write" code; I try to solve problems using the computer as a tool.
How often have you used the computer as a blunt force (striking something) or as a construction item (eg in a wall). You solve problems by writing code for the computer to run. Is the computer really a tool or is it simply a device for controlling tools? If the outputs are not connected to other devices the computer does no useful work.
Beautifully said! While I encourage you to read the relatively short text yourself, here's the summary:
Hacking first requires a system -- any system -- with some perceived rules. Then we need a hacker: someone who keeps looking for the truth and finds the actual rules the system operates on. While the hacker can just stop there having broken the illusion, sometimes he will "use his discoveries to hack the system, to transform the world". Playing by the actual rules instead of the perceived rules is initially what is called a hack.
Hackers or crackers? In the first paragraphs, he seems to assume hacker=cracker. I always thought there was a clear distinction between the two, at least among hackers. Am I wrong?
*"... these hackers are discovering the actual rules of the computer systems (e.g. buffer overflows), and using them to circumvent the intended rules of the system (typically access controls)."
It is amusing to think of the distinction as being one of those places where the stated reality (Hacking is somehow nobler than breaking into computer systems) is at odds with actual reality (breaking into systems is hacking).
The irony, then, is that understanding the actual reality would then be a precursor to hacking hacking.
He clearly shows that breaking into computer systems is called hacking in the media, and explains why the term hacking is in technical terms correct in this situation.
My opinion is that crackers and hackers are to distinct sets, but there is an intersection (though I think it isn't overly big). Hacking needs to be creative, nothing about that says it can't be malicious.
That isn't to say that I approve of hacking in that context, merely than it can exist.
i don't think it's possible to overstate just how true this is in the context of social/people hacking. the smaller the gap, the more effective your social/people skills will be.