However, the best way Howard gets the truth out of his guests is by lying directly to them about a specific piece of their life. By telling them a lie about themselves, the very first reaction they have is to correct it and by doing so, they give the answer he’s searching for.
This is very useful Usenet+ trick to get an answer to a question. You could be nice and simply ask a question: "How can I do X in Y?" and you might get an answer. Maybe.
Or you could simply assert, "It is impossible to do X in Y", and get a flood of replies because, well, xkcd 386 should cover it.
edit: It occurred to me that there may be a practical way to spin this when getting software requirements. For example, you could simply ask, "Is <some quality or feature or behavior> important?" Ir you could phrase it as an assertion: "OK, so I'm assuming that <some quality or feature or behavior> is not important." Or some variation.
I wonder if that difference in phrasing leads to getting better details. That is, in what way does how you phrase something (question or assertion, positive or negative) push a response in one direction or another?
I use this approach to get my team to pick a place to eat lunch often. When no one has a strong feeling about where we should go, I suggest a visit to the local McDonald's. Ideas begin pouring forth almost immediately.
I am convinced that the entire badBIOS story is an application of this technique to shake out remaining bugs in the design. Look at the large number of subject matter experts who dissected every aspect of the claims and universally concluded... "Impossible unless [expert explanation of method] ...and even so, unlikely."
100% agree. Get the info you want by being wrong. People simply cant wait to correct you. Its such a simple manipulation, its actually quite sad. Works all over, not just usenet.
Further, what it really depressing is that often, if you simply ask the question, many usenet replies will be "google it" (1) type answers. So, you go to a NG which is for a subject, you ask about that subject, and people there think you should already know the answer before going to the place meant to discuss it.
(1)Used to be "google is your friend", but oddly enough, I dont see that so much these days.
RTFM is elitist bullshit that really f\a*cks me off. Stern's technique is very adept at breaking this code of silence. Here is a paraphrased example of youtube:
Troll: "HTML is a programming language"
Gullible douchebag: "%s" % wikipedia_article_on_HTML
Troll: "Troll successful"
I've done this gathering requirements, getting acceptance (PR, release notes, tech docs, UI designs), problem solving, etc. Make up something plausible, but wrong, and label it "final proof" with a deadline two days away. This technique works a little bit like adding a duck (Battle Chess reference).
Works for me because I care more about winning than being right, so I'm not embarrassed to be wrong.
Lot's of reasons people withhold information for whatever reason. Most geeks are introverts, so are reluctant to speak up. Some people don't want to be embarrassed. Many, many aren't aware of what they know. It's easier to criticize than to create. And, yes, some people are gate keepers, hoarding information.
This is also a common social engineering trick. If you ask someone for their password, alarm bells usually go off. However, if you tell someone their password is XYZ, they'll potentially correct you (esp. if there's some degree of trust) and tell you it's ABC.
I remember reading Mitnick used this trick a fair bit.
Welcome to Elicitation 101 [1]. The author points out one of the most obvious and easily used ones:
Deliberate False Statements / Denial of the Obvious: Say something wrong in the hopes that the person will correct your statement with true information. “Everybody knows that process won’t work—it’s just a DARPA dream project that will never get off the ground.”
As someone who is socially awkward, especially at small talk and the superficial dialog that seems to preface any real discussion or conversation, I find Howard Stern to be amazing to listen to. He can talk about one small thing for minutes at a time without you realizing how much time has gone by.
I don't really appreciate his humour, but analysing his conversations is very interesting and educational.
Stern sounds like he would go "deep" into a topic. Most people seem to want appetizers: various little known facts with little context. If you go too deep, it's boring and too technical for most people. Maybe that is why small talk is difficult for some? (That includes me.)
What was fun to me was when Howard interviewed Paul McCartney. Howard tried ever interview trick in the book, and Paul deftly swatted them away. It was great watching two masters spar at each other.
I saw the same thing when Prince Charles was interviewed by 60 Minutes, where Prince Charles effortlessly parried every tactic tried by the reporter.
I don't think he swatted them all away. He let some things slip by, although I've no doubt it was not spontaneous "let my guard down and got caught accidentally" on Paul's part.
I got the clear impression from Paul that he only revealed what he wanted to, not what Howard manipulated him into revealing. This is unlike what happens with his other guests.
I remember reading that a variant of this technique was used way back to coax Beethoven to perform for guests. He was known to not want to play on request (iirc, it was a pride "I do what I want when I want, I'm not your dancing monkey" kind of thing).
So if you wanted to get him to play for you, you merely had to poorly play one of his works, and he would be so annoyed that he would react by playing it the right way).
I wish I remember where I read this (hadn't thought of it in years, so I may have details wrong, but the premise is the same).
I use the devil's advocate approach to gathering software requirements. I argue against what I feel are good ideas and argue for what are seemingly not so good ideas. As long as you don't get too far off track the discussion is often very enlightening about what your customers actually want to build. The downside is that you either end up feeling like or looking like an idiot because you're seemingly on the wrong side of idea (BTW I'm not claiming that I'm not an idiot). Letting everyone know that this is your approach doesn't have much, if any, downside and alleviates this problem. Having another person to tag team with makes it less exhausting. It works for the same reason that Stern's approach works - people love to tell you how you are wrong.
I've listened daily for the last 10 years and I can shed some light.
> "The Interviews are more interesting if the person is naked."
This is absolutely not true. The best and most interesting interviews are the celebrity interviews, not the porn stars. Does Howard actually think he's going to get Denise Richards to take her top off? No. It's a tactic just like the tactics in this article. She says no the the extreme, but will compromise with something more tame but still revealing.
> "If you don't have to follow the broadcast rules, you can ask questions nobody else can."
I agree with this, and I love that he can.
> "If you hire a black female as your co-host people won't be so quick to call you a racist or sexist."
This sounds like it may work, but clearly doesn't. Howard has always been a supporter of race equality, gender equality and gay rights, but he's constantly viewed as a racist, sexist homophobe. Infact, when asked, people would rather date Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, "The Boston Bomber" than Howard Stern (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLF7SCNHctE)
I'd like to add that it's true that now that Howard is on Sirius he can be more graphic in his questions, but even when he was on terrestrial radio he asked questions nobody else did.
It's also quite clear to anyone who's a fan of the show that Robin was not hired so that Howard could get away with racism or sexism. Robin wasn't even hired by Howard when they first met.
"Learning this skill won’t necessarily make you a better software engineer, or entrepreneur, but it can get information from people that are otherwise not willing to reveal it."
Pfft, every successful entrepreneur I've met from the Kansai area of Japan does this. The first step is knowing the price of everything, isn't it?
This is very useful Usenet+ trick to get an answer to a question. You could be nice and simply ask a question: "How can I do X in Y?" and you might get an answer. Maybe.
Or you could simply assert, "It is impossible to do X in Y", and get a flood of replies because, well, xkcd 386 should cover it.
http://xkcd.com/386/
edit: It occurred to me that there may be a practical way to spin this when getting software requirements. For example, you could simply ask, "Is <some quality or feature or behavior> important?" Ir you could phrase it as an assertion: "OK, so I'm assuming that <some quality or feature or behavior> is not important." Or some variation.
I wonder if that difference in phrasing leads to getting better details. That is, in what way does how you phrase something (question or assertion, positive or negative) push a response in one direction or another?