It's a little Anthony Robbins-ish, but I like to think of something similar:
Anything you put your attention on, grows. So keep your attention on what you're hoping for, not on what you wish would go away. Don't give negative things oxygen.
(Of course this is all well and fine for someone of generally good character doing productive work; but can also be the formula for monsters to use that are "hoping for" things that most would find repugnant).
Related, which I always loved: Winston Churchill "You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks."
As Bagehot is quoted saying in the article: "Above all things our royalty is to be reverenced, and if you begin to poke about it you cannot reverence it... Its mystery is its life. We must not let in daylight upon magic".
This makes it evident how this strategy exists to maintain the "magic" and fool the masses. It has no place in a progressive society where being duped with propaganda into believing falsehoods should not be something to look up to.
> where being duped with propaganda into believing falsehoods should not be something to look up to.
I agree, but believe we’re now in a regressive society, moving as fast as we can to repeat history, investing vast resources into effortless propaganda machines.
That's what I personally call the Huberman strategy: no official statement, barely any acknowledgments of allegations, just carrying on with whatever thing you're doing, the mob will soon enough find its next target. It worked exceptionally well for him, I guess it helps to be a neuroscientist.
Maybe it worked better than trying to address it, but Huberman’s popularity definitely fell off after it was revealed that he was not a great person.
During the peak of his popularity you would find Huberman protocols or Huberman factoids repeated everywhere on the internet, including HN. There was a sharp drop off after the revelations. I can’t recall the last time I saw someone someone repeat a Huberman podcast factoid here, which is remarkable after he was so popular.
In the Huberman case it was compounded by how much he was embracing and repeating non-scientific ideas that sounded good on social media, like reducing everything to being about dopamine or making crazy claims about how you could do things to “raise your dopamine” that were not actually supported by research. When his personal dramas were exposed it became an opening to discuss how bad his podcast had become and I think many listeners woke up to that fact when shaken by the realization that not everything about Huberman was as it seemed.
He has been able to continue podcasting to an audience of die-hard fans, though. These people never totally disappear because a core audience worships them and will ignore everything inconvenient to their worship.
Peter Attia went through a similar downfall after several increasingly bad scandals were revealed, culminating in him getting caught associating deeply with Epstein. He tried to make a public statement about distancing himself from Epstein after discovering Epstein’s crimes, but there are public emails between Attia and Epstein where Attia asks Epstein about how he’s doing after Epstein became national news. That backfired everywhere except the core audience of Attia worshippers who now just get angry whenever anyone brings up the Attia-Epstein connection. It’s wild that Attia was one of the few Epstein associates who continued contacting Epstein so much (which went into court records and became public) after he became publicly known as a trafficker. And yet there are hardcore Attia fans to this day.
Apparently, the British royal family came to the realization a couple of decades ago that it was not an adequate way of avoiding drama anymore.
> With a less deferential and increasingly aggressive media landscape, the strategy of "Never complain, never explain" was abandoned by Prince Charles (the future King Charles III) and his wife Diana, Princess of Wales, in the 1990s.
Most people or organisations can just wait until the public get bored of that issue and forget about them, but for the Royals that doesn't work because they are _always_ in the public eye. There's enough demand for Royal news that if nothing else is happening, the press will quite happily rake over old sores. The only way out is to feed the press with constant new material.
It's annoying to the outside observer, but in-general providing specific details risks opening yourself up to more criticism. It's a cynical stance, but understandable.
Only org's truly confident in their handling of an incident can afford to be open.
Obviously key stakeholders get the full details, but Joe Public doesn't get to know.
Secrets shrouded in darkness, it’s certainly convenient when you’re part of a royal family. But major leaks ought to be made public—or, at the very least, the steps taken to address them should be disclosed. It is important to understand the scale of a leak and the specific individuals involved.
This maxim doesn't work for government, because they have to justify what they do because they are the ones trying to steer a country though very slack and unconnected reins.
The odd bit about the royals is that they are meant to be largely apolitical. They are supposed to be focused on charitable works, opening infrastructure and generally promoting togetherness.
This kinda worked because it meant that we don't have to pretend to like politicians. Great Britain (yes, not UK because its complex) gets to detach the pomp and circumstance from a political movement, allowing honours, events and occasions to largely be free of politics (despite honours being entirely political) This is why flag shaggers are so weird, its fine to like your country, but getting dressed up in a flag for anything other than sports or getting shitfaced is not the done thing. If you're gonna have a fight, at least do it over something tangible, like which ever football club your dad grew up near.
The bit that worked about the royals is that they were a mystery. We don't know who they really are (you rarely want to know everything about a person, because people are generally messy and ugly close up)
Frankly I don't want to know that harry and william fell out. I have no opinions on kate and megan. I am sure they are nice people, and moreover I couldnt give a fuck about what race one of them is, I'm not american, so why do I fucking care?
I just want posh grandad to say nice words to me at state occasions.
I also want that nonce andrew in jail.
ANYWAY
don't complain don't explain only works if you are only ever trying to bring people together. as soon as you trying to divide and conquer you have to explain.
I suppose think about it like you’re the captain of a ship. Imagine a captain always complaining about their peers, the ship, their outfit etc. And when giving orders they sound out their whole thinking process about why they are doing x or y. Versus never complaining or explaining in public. Certainly the former would be a less inspiring and weaker leader.
And yet, I feel so validated as a commoner who has (mostly in US politics) felt as though all rational rules of conversation, question and answer, and accountability are suspended.
Naive me joined other commoners to express aghast surprise at how stupid and clueless our leaders were (are!), completely clueless to the idea that perhaps we were (are!) being managed and that our rage burns off energy in a mostly harmless manner.
It's a little Anthony Robbins-ish, but I like to think of something similar:
Anything you put your attention on, grows. So keep your attention on what you're hoping for, not on what you wish would go away. Don't give negative things oxygen.
(Of course this is all well and fine for someone of generally good character doing productive work; but can also be the formula for monsters to use that are "hoping for" things that most would find repugnant).
Related, which I always loved: Winston Churchill "You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks."
As Bagehot is quoted saying in the article: "Above all things our royalty is to be reverenced, and if you begin to poke about it you cannot reverence it... Its mystery is its life. We must not let in daylight upon magic".
This makes it evident how this strategy exists to maintain the "magic" and fool the masses. It has no place in a progressive society where being duped with propaganda into believing falsehoods should not be something to look up to.
This is the essence of "royalness". It's all about the magic, going back millennia.
The royal family has obviously fallen apart entirely as its human foibles have become evident, and in modern society it is almost impossible to hide.
> where being duped with propaganda into believing falsehoods should not be something to look up to.
I agree, but believe we’re now in a regressive society, moving as fast as we can to repeat history, investing vast resources into effortless propaganda machines.
That's what I personally call the Huberman strategy: no official statement, barely any acknowledgments of allegations, just carrying on with whatever thing you're doing, the mob will soon enough find its next target. It worked exceptionally well for him, I guess it helps to be a neuroscientist.
Maybe it worked better than trying to address it, but Huberman’s popularity definitely fell off after it was revealed that he was not a great person.
During the peak of his popularity you would find Huberman protocols or Huberman factoids repeated everywhere on the internet, including HN. There was a sharp drop off after the revelations. I can’t recall the last time I saw someone someone repeat a Huberman podcast factoid here, which is remarkable after he was so popular.
In the Huberman case it was compounded by how much he was embracing and repeating non-scientific ideas that sounded good on social media, like reducing everything to being about dopamine or making crazy claims about how you could do things to “raise your dopamine” that were not actually supported by research. When his personal dramas were exposed it became an opening to discuss how bad his podcast had become and I think many listeners woke up to that fact when shaken by the realization that not everything about Huberman was as it seemed.
He has been able to continue podcasting to an audience of die-hard fans, though. These people never totally disappear because a core audience worships them and will ignore everything inconvenient to their worship.
Peter Attia went through a similar downfall after several increasingly bad scandals were revealed, culminating in him getting caught associating deeply with Epstein. He tried to make a public statement about distancing himself from Epstein after discovering Epstein’s crimes, but there are public emails between Attia and Epstein where Attia asks Epstein about how he’s doing after Epstein became national news. That backfired everywhere except the core audience of Attia worshippers who now just get angry whenever anyone brings up the Attia-Epstein connection. It’s wild that Attia was one of the few Epstein associates who continued contacting Epstein so much (which went into court records and became public) after he became publicly known as a trafficker. And yet there are hardcore Attia fans to this day.
As we can see with Epstein files handling. And Trump rape allegations. And supreme court justice rape allegations.
And generally other wrongdoing by powerful.
This is actually some really good advice on public relations to avoid drama
Apparently, the British royal family came to the realization a couple of decades ago that it was not an adequate way of avoiding drama anymore.
> With a less deferential and increasingly aggressive media landscape, the strategy of "Never complain, never explain" was abandoned by Prince Charles (the future King Charles III) and his wife Diana, Princess of Wales, in the 1990s.
I am not sure whether the motto is the cause there or the fact that Charles had a lot of drama going on...
Most people or organisations can just wait until the public get bored of that issue and forget about them, but for the Royals that doesn't work because they are _always_ in the public eye. There's enough demand for Royal news that if nothing else is happening, the press will quite happily rake over old sores. The only way out is to feed the press with constant new material.
It's annoying to the outside observer, but in-general providing specific details risks opening yourself up to more criticism. It's a cynical stance, but understandable.
Only org's truly confident in their handling of an incident can afford to be open.
Obviously key stakeholders get the full details, but Joe Public doesn't get to know.
Secrets shrouded in darkness, it’s certainly convenient when you’re part of a royal family. But major leaks ought to be made public—or, at the very least, the steps taken to address them should be disclosed. It is important to understand the scale of a leak and the specific individuals involved.
It depends what you are trying to do.
This maxim doesn't work for government, because they have to justify what they do because they are the ones trying to steer a country though very slack and unconnected reins.
The odd bit about the royals is that they are meant to be largely apolitical. They are supposed to be focused on charitable works, opening infrastructure and generally promoting togetherness.
This kinda worked because it meant that we don't have to pretend to like politicians. Great Britain (yes, not UK because its complex) gets to detach the pomp and circumstance from a political movement, allowing honours, events and occasions to largely be free of politics (despite honours being entirely political) This is why flag shaggers are so weird, its fine to like your country, but getting dressed up in a flag for anything other than sports or getting shitfaced is not the done thing. If you're gonna have a fight, at least do it over something tangible, like which ever football club your dad grew up near.
The bit that worked about the royals is that they were a mystery. We don't know who they really are (you rarely want to know everything about a person, because people are generally messy and ugly close up)
Frankly I don't want to know that harry and william fell out. I have no opinions on kate and megan. I am sure they are nice people, and moreover I couldnt give a fuck about what race one of them is, I'm not american, so why do I fucking care?
I just want posh grandad to say nice words to me at state occasions.
I also want that nonce andrew in jail.
ANYWAY
don't complain don't explain only works if you are only ever trying to bring people together. as soon as you trying to divide and conquer you have to explain.
This article lacks a concise definition of what this means, other than "not commenting" and "just getting on with it", I would suppose.
I suppose think about it like you’re the captain of a ship. Imagine a captain always complaining about their peers, the ship, their outfit etc. And when giving orders they sound out their whole thinking process about why they are doing x or y. Versus never complaining or explaining in public. Certainly the former would be a less inspiring and weaker leader.
Exactly. Full steam ahead while weaker sailors discuss and fret about icebergs.
"Why did your ship, the Titanic, sink Captain?"
"No comment"
Maybe a more contemporary aphorism is "don't let them see you sweat." Not identical, but seems similar enough.
And yet, I feel so validated as a commoner who has (mostly in US politics) felt as though all rational rules of conversation, question and answer, and accountability are suspended.
Naive me joined other commoners to express aghast surprise at how stupid and clueless our leaders were (are!), completely clueless to the idea that perhaps we were (are!) being managed and that our rage burns off energy in a mostly harmless manner.