Lying, liars and society

[Robb]

I totally agree with your point, but this isn't what I meant at all. If B knows A was lying and keeps his mouth shut, then B definitely holds an information advantage over A, B possibly holds an information advantage over C-Z, and C-Z possibly hold an information advantage over A. When B opens his mouth, he gives up those advantages for himself and possibly gives up advantages for C-Z, etc.

So B should do what, build a small coalition of allies, say D - G, who agree with B and who then can together plot A's downfall? Or, possibly, exploit the information disadvantage of the lower part of alphabet soup? Or both?

[spoonitnow]

So B should do what, build a small coalition of allies, say D - G, who agree with B and who then can together plot A's downfall? Or, possibly, exploit the information disadvantage of the lower part of alphabet soup? Or both?

Either/or depending on B's goals, the pre-existing distribution of power/authority, etc. Sort of like one of those "it depends" answers.

The actual incident in consideration is an administrator, say dean A, misprepresenting matters to the faculty, B - Z. The dean holds much power, but not total. However, if his position goes unchallenged, faculty members J - Z will believe him, and the rest will be bewildered. His power will be completely undermined if Faculty Member B can convince C - Z he lied, without incurring the "societal wrath" of being the one calling someone else a liar.

Now this is the kind of detail that makes these things fun! Person A being in a position of authority makes B's actions a clearer mistake. Offending the vanity of someone who has authority over you is absolutely huge. A great historical example is Nicolas Fouquet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

So it seems that B had better options, including something like you mentioned above. A more insidious plan would be to indirectly get a rival C to realize A's deceit in hopes that C would expose A to D-Z while simultaneously bringing C and A into conflict, but being able to pull this off depends on more information that we don't have.

On the other hand like you mentioned above, if the deceit would be damaging enough to take A out of power then staging a coup could be a viable option.

[Robb]

Now this is the kind of detail that makes these things fun! Person A being in a position of authority makes B's actions a clearer mistake. Offending the vanity of someone who has authority over you is absolutely huge. A great historical example is Nicolas Fouquet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

So it seems that B had better options, including something like you mentioned above.

OK, senior tenured faculty, like me, can't be fired, even if the dean is pissed. However, there are programs and funding lines I could be denied access to. Not a huge deal, but significant.

The power the dean holds is more over the junior faculty, which make up 60% of the faculty. Of the 40% who are tenured, maybe 2% have the balls to stand up to the dean.

The dean has a superior, who just retired, and it will be nearly a year of "interim" before that boss is replaced.

So let the infighting begin. The senior faculty, say B - G, can ignore the dean, lose no power or fringe benefits, but they leave 60% of the faculty denied a raise they deserve, amounting to $2,000 for one year only for each of them.

If the Faculty member B, who has balls, can detonate the dean's position in a public forum, many junior faculty members benefit, and a precedent is set for when the new provost (boss) is appointed. Of course, Ballsy B takes the personal hit for a decade by alienating his direct superior.

Given these circumstances, and avoiding the direct confrontation, it seems you would suggest getting a coalition or, possibly, another dean to take the stand, thus making it more difficult for the whole group to be punished.

Since I'm not risk-averse, I'm willing to be Ballsy B and just call the dean out. The coalition is hard, since most faculty are risk-averse, even those with tenure. And the deans tend to stick together, so fracturing their collusion is difficult.

But I'm working on it, while pouting about society being such nits about calling someone a liar.

And my original point about "everyone knowing A is lying" is only half true. The dean works through committees, staffed by senior faculty B - G, so he has limited power to withhold the raises. But if a Ballsy B stood up and made certain points clear, shove all in as it were, the dean would lose his position of sway and junior faculty might - emphasis on might, benefit.

So none of the original hypothesis is precisely accurate. But it would be nice just to stand on soap box and start calling names. Unfortunately, it's also pretty counterproductive.

But I thought it might raise some interesting discussion in the Commune.