Christopher_C_Lapp@cup.portal.com (10/23/90)
Countertactics to a value-based assault involve maintaining a consistent value schemata, and naively accepting the adversary's projection of data as prima facie evidence of sincere behavior. Consistent, simple values, tenaciously adhered to will give the target of an assault the perceptive freedom to empathize with his adversaries and ultimately "blow the cover" off the investigation. So long as the adversary is bound by legal rules of evidence, he will attempt to induce value dissonance in his target, and utlimately record evidence he can use to further implicate the target This approach is time-honored and proven to work with the criminal mind. However, in the value-based sphere, empathy is more important than evidence, and knowledge divorced from a simple set of values is nothing but raw data. Thus, the colliding forces of simple values, and little ability to project evidence collide with profoundly complex values, and massive ability to provide stimula. Ultimately, simplicity leads to elegant conclusions, and complex value systems tend to collapse when presented with simple but vague data. The weapon used here is simplicity coupled with vagueness. The lean, mean, simple value-based fighter has the advantage, because the massive coordination of resources necessary to provide daily stimula to a simple-value based fighter inevitably give rise to empirical evidence of value-dissonance on the part of the aggressor. This value dissonance can be exploited by the simple-value fighter and ultimately lead to the creation of a value-b inary in the mind of the aggressor. A value binary, by the way, is a mutually exclusive, mutually contradictory set of conclusions reached by exactly the same evidence and exactly the same complex set of values. Give reason-path A, and evidence X I conclude Y. Given reason-path B, and evidence X, I conclude Z. My fundamental assumptions about the subject remain constant. Y and Z are both mutually exclusive and contradictory. In addition, if the element of personal or career risk is involved, the aggressor will predictably conclude that the "safest" and not necessarily the actual conclusion is the one to follow.