8 ms·

Oh oh! I remember this technique from Cialdini's Influence. During the Korean war, the Chinese used the same technique on American POWs: For instance, prisoner

Oh oh! I remember this technique from Cialdini's Influence. During the Korean war, the Chinese used the same technique on American POWs: For instance, prisoners were frequently asked to make statements so mildly anti-American or pro-Communist as to seem inconsequential (“The United States is not perfect.” “In a Communist country, unemployment is not a problem.”). But once these minor requests were complied with, the men found themselves pushed to submit to related yet more substantive requests. A man who had just agreed with his Chinese interrogator that the United States is not perfect might then be asked to indicate some of the ways in which he thought this was the case. Once he had so explained himself, he might be asked to make a list of these “problems with America” and to sign his name to it. Later he might be asked to read his list in a discussion group with other prisoners. “After all, it’s what you really believe, isn’t it?” Still later he might be asked to write an essay expanding on his list and discussing these problems in greater detail.

judk 13y ago
In Muppet form: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NpYEJx7PkWE&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DNpYEJx7PkWE http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NpYEJx7PkWE&desktop_uri=%2Fwatc...
elwell 13y ago
Sounds like an entry-level liberal arts course at any major private institution in the US.
- aaronem 13y ago
  Careful there, Citizen.
pudakai 13y ago
In retrospect, I'm pretty convinced he was going to try to get me to undress myself at his escalating suggestion w/out him ever touching me. He was extremely careful about not touching, "accidentally" brushing, etc, and keeping out of my personal space. I realize now that this was a survival mechanism for him, as if the spell were broken by some wrong move, he really could have gotten hurt badly in this sort of situation.
- cam4er 13y ago
  So did you ever get to enjoy sex with a guy after that? Seems with the popularity of sites like chatroulette and cam4 more and more guys are either secretly or openingly experimenting with their curious sides. *Why is this getting downvoted are hacker newers homophobic? The author notes how much the encounter excited him and how he thought about how it excited him throughout the years. I don't see this being an unreasonable question to ask.
  - paxcoder 13y ago
    This gay story, as well as one (especially) of the comments on the actual article, and your comment; something's very wrong with all three. I was about to ask if I'm the only one who sees that, but if you were downvoted, I guess I'm not. I'm glad because seriously: WTH. EDIT: Actually, the reason for the downvotes is probably the fact that it has nothing to do with hacking.
    - Udo 13y ago
      What do you mean when you say there's something wrong with all three?
      - paxcoder 13y ago
        Not sure how else to put it: There is too much of the killer in all three.
        Udo 13y ago
        Well, the story is about an encounter with a serial killer, so of course there is too much of the killer in it. The comment you responded to is just trolling around, and getting downvoted for it. I still don't see what you mean, sorry.
        paxcoder 13y ago
        The story is written as if it were fan fiction of the fan of the killer. Then there is a comment on it saying how "perfectly wonderful" and "absolutely magnificent" the story is. And then there's this guy, who isn't trolling(from a deleted comment I found out he didn't read the entire story), and inquires about the writer's same-sex relations after the encounter. As a bonus, there's also an article elsewhere "Why hasn't California executed Randy Kraft?", in which there's a comment which describes what the killer is doing, and urges people to write and send books to him. This all turns my stomach. It's morbid.
saturdaysaint 13y ago
This kind of incrementalism is pretty fundamental to all seduction. I mean, the story is obviously disturbing but if I'm being honest, I used the same principles in my single days. Being too direct is a huge turn off so artfully and gradually escalating the romantic and sexual undercurrents of an interaction is where much of seduction hinges. Tactful flattery and sincere interest are certainly helpful there and also need to be ramped up artfully. I mean, hearing about a gay guy doing this creeps me out as a straight guy, but really a lot of this is going on in bars as we speak and is generally a mutually satisfying experience.
- vidarh 13y ago
  > Being too direct is a huge turn off so Yes, and no. Being "too direct" can be fantastically effective if you can back it up with sufficient confidence, and can manage to make it look natural rather than creepy. It works exactly because the confidence and making it look natural thing is rare enough to make you stand out in a way that often produces very rapid and strong attraction. E.g. in a bar, it shocked me years ago when I realised how easy it is to get random women to make out with you just by going up to them and telling them you want to, and start to lean in slowly but surely (slowly, because unless you want things to end badly you want to make sure it is easy for her to leave/tell you to fuck off or similar if she doesn't want to). And often your best bet is actually when you get rejected initially. That is when you really prove whether you're just confident and having fun vs. being a creepy: if you laugh it off and seem to not care, it amps attraction; if you act as if you were caught doing something bad, she will treat you as if you were caught doing something bad. But the fundamental difference is end-goal: It is "easy" to create quick, strong rushes of attraction (e.g. lifting a woman up on the dance floor and swirl her around out of the blue; or help an old lady across the road in front of her or any number of simple things can amp attraction massively), but the quick rushes of attraction subside equally quickly if you can't keep up the tempo (and most of us have no hope in hell of that). The systematic, incremental approach on the other hand is much easier to make last: You don't just amp up attraction, which can be very fleeting, but you get her (or him) used to acting a certain way around you, and you around her/him, and you get the person used to complying, and used to acting a certain way around you, and our desire for consistency is intensely strong and helps reinforce our willingness (or desire) to act the same way. People also tend to mirror the strongest "frame": If the person with the most confident demeanour acts as if someone is totally natural, people will tend to "fall in line" and accept it as natural too (and then rationalise why to themselves even if they are totally unaware of any reason). Couple that with innate desires to please and for attention etc. and it becomes scarily powerful in the wrong hands...
teddyh 13y ago
“It only needs one small thing; if he will answer one simple question, the rest will follow. Why did he resign?” — № 2, The Prisoner, The Chimes of Big Ben
spindritf 13y ago
> For instance, prisoners were frequently asked to make statements so mildly anti-American or pro-Communist as to seem inconsequential (“The United States is not perfect.” “In a Communist country, unemployment is not a problem.”). This is a great technique because most people's beliefs about most things are shallow and weak. Anyone even slightly versed will quickly flip those ("You know what we call a system with no unemployment? Slavery.") but you can chip away at what seems like very fundamental convictions (democracy, human rights, capitalism, heliocentrism...) with relative ease because most people have never been confronted with any half-intelligent criticism of those. Partially, it's a problem of our education system rewarding recitation of canonical answers. Fundamentally, humans have not evolved to be philosophers.
- mistercow 13y ago
  Cialdini has a different take on it in his analysis, which hangs this on a much lower level tendency that cannot be easily overcome by education - consistency pressure. The idea is that the prospect of being perceived as wishy-washy is so devastating socially, that we have evolved to actually change our self-image and our beliefs to reflect our actions and words. There's a scary amount of evidence for this effect. The worst part, when applied to how we reason, is that being smarter can actually make it worse. I've sometimes found myself arguing for some downright idiotic positions because I made an uninformed declaration early in the conversation, and then found myself compelled to defend it. If I were dumber, I might run out of things to say and stop talking in those situations. Instead, I have from time to time actually convinced people - or at least convinced them that my ignorant position was worth considering.
  - hosh 13y ago
    The "devastating socially" is itself, a mask. That particular reaction relates to fears of rejection. Fears of rejection are internal experiences. Being smarter makes this effect worse, usually because someone who is smart (or likes to see themselves as smart) and likes to argue, are typically disconnected with their emotions, not because they put argue themselves into a corner. They seek social acceptance by being right, often because they lack emotional skills to work with acceptance and rejection. It's not really about being dumb or smart. It's really having attachments to self-image. There's this maxim: if you have no pride, then you have no shame. Without attachment, you let your self image go, and the shame goes along with it. You laugh at your folly and have a good time :-) I will note, the methods the sociopath used on the Marine is pretty much the same kind of methods pick up artists use for seducing women, even down to the "you have to get them away from their friends."

judk 13y ago

In Muppet form: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NpYEJx7PkWE&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DNpYEJx7PkWE http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NpYEJx7PkWE&desktop_uri=%2Fwatc...

elwell 13y ago

Sounds like an entry-level liberal arts course at any major private institution in the US.

aaronem 13y ago
Careful there, Citizen.

pudakai 13y ago

In retrospect, I'm pretty convinced he was going to try to get me to undress myself at his escalating suggestion w/out him ever touching me. He was extremely careful about not touching, "accidentally" brushing, etc, and keeping out of my personal space. I realize now that this was a survival mechanism for him, as if the spell were broken by some wrong move, he really could have gotten hurt badly in this sort of situation.

cam4er 13y ago
So did you ever get to enjoy sex with a guy after that? Seems with the popularity of sites like chatroulette and cam4 more and more guys are either secretly or openingly experimenting with their curious sides. *Why is this getting downvoted are hacker newers homophobic? The author notes how much the encounter excited him and how he thought about how it excited him throughout the years. I don't see this being an unreasonable question to ask.
- paxcoder 13y ago
  This gay story, as well as one (especially) of the comments on the actual article, and your comment; something's very wrong with all three. I was about to ask if I'm the only one who sees that, but if you were downvoted, I guess I'm not. I'm glad because seriously: WTH. EDIT: Actually, the reason for the downvotes is probably the fact that it has nothing to do with hacking.
  - Udo 13y ago
    What do you mean when you say there's something wrong with all three?
    - paxcoder 13y ago
      Not sure how else to put it: There is too much of the killer in all three.
      - Udo 13y ago
        Well, the story is about an encounter with a serial killer, so of course there is too much of the killer in it. The comment you responded to is just trolling around, and getting downvoted for it. I still don't see what you mean, sorry.
        paxcoder 13y ago
        The story is written as if it were fan fiction of the fan of the killer. Then there is a comment on it saying how "perfectly wonderful" and "absolutely magnificent" the story is. And then there's this guy, who isn't trolling(from a deleted comment I found out he didn't read the entire story), and inquires about the writer's same-sex relations after the encounter. As a bonus, there's also an article elsewhere "Why hasn't California executed Randy Kraft?", in which there's a comment which describes what the killer is doing, and urges people to write and send books to him. This all turns my stomach. It's morbid.

saturdaysaint 13y ago

This kind of incrementalism is pretty fundamental to all seduction. I mean, the story is obviously disturbing but if I'm being honest, I used the same principles in my single days. Being too direct is a huge turn off so artfully and gradually escalating the romantic and sexual undercurrents of an interaction is where much of seduction hinges. Tactful flattery and sincere interest are certainly helpful there and also need to be ramped up artfully. I mean, hearing about a gay guy doing this creeps me out as a straight guy, but really a lot of this is going on in bars as we speak and is generally a mutually satisfying experience.

vidarh 13y ago
> Being too direct is a huge turn off so Yes, and no. Being "too direct" can be fantastically effective if you can back it up with sufficient confidence, and can manage to make it look natural rather than creepy. It works exactly because the confidence and making it look natural thing is rare enough to make you stand out in a way that often produces very rapid and strong attraction. E.g. in a bar, it shocked me years ago when I realised how easy it is to get random women to make out with you just by going up to them and telling them you want to, and start to lean in slowly but surely (slowly, because unless you want things to end badly you want to make sure it is easy for her to leave/tell you to fuck off or similar if she doesn't want to). And often your best bet is actually when you get rejected initially. That is when you really prove whether you're just confident and having fun vs. being a creepy: if you laugh it off and seem to not care, it amps attraction; if you act as if you were caught doing something bad, she will treat you as if you were caught doing something bad. But the fundamental difference is end-goal: It is "easy" to create quick, strong rushes of attraction (e.g. lifting a woman up on the dance floor and swirl her around out of the blue; or help an old lady across the road in front of her or any number of simple things can amp attraction massively), but the quick rushes of attraction subside equally quickly if you can't keep up the tempo (and most of us have no hope in hell of that). The systematic, incremental approach on the other hand is much easier to make last: You don't just amp up attraction, which can be very fleeting, but you get her (or him) used to acting a certain way around you, and you around her/him, and you get the person used to complying, and used to acting a certain way around you, and our desire for consistency is intensely strong and helps reinforce our willingness (or desire) to act the same way. People also tend to mirror the strongest "frame": If the person with the most confident demeanour acts as if someone is totally natural, people will tend to "fall in line" and accept it as natural too (and then rationalise why to themselves even if they are totally unaware of any reason). Couple that with innate desires to please and for attention etc. and it becomes scarily powerful in the wrong hands...

teddyh 13y ago

“It only needs one small thing; if he will answer one simple question, the rest will follow. Why did he resign?” — № 2, The Prisoner, The Chimes of Big Ben

spindritf 13y ago

> For instance, prisoners were frequently asked to make statements so mildly anti-American or pro-Communist as to seem inconsequential (“The United States is not perfect.” “In a Communist country, unemployment is not a problem.”). This is a great technique because most people's beliefs about most things are shallow and weak. Anyone even slightly versed will quickly flip those ("You know what we call a system with no unemployment? Slavery.") but you can chip away at what seems like very fundamental convictions (democracy, human rights, capitalism, heliocentrism...) with relative ease because most people have never been confronted with any half-intelligent criticism of those. Partially, it's a problem of our education system rewarding recitation of canonical answers. Fundamentally, humans have not evolved to be philosophers.

mistercow 13y ago
Cialdini has a different take on it in his analysis, which hangs this on a much lower level tendency that cannot be easily overcome by education - consistency pressure. The idea is that the prospect of being perceived as wishy-washy is so devastating socially, that we have evolved to actually change our self-image and our beliefs to reflect our actions and words. There's a scary amount of evidence for this effect. The worst part, when applied to how we reason, is that being smarter can actually make it worse. I've sometimes found myself arguing for some downright idiotic positions because I made an uninformed declaration early in the conversation, and then found myself compelled to defend it. If I were dumber, I might run out of things to say and stop talking in those situations. Instead, I have from time to time actually convinced people - or at least convinced them that my ignorant position was worth considering.
- hosh 13y ago
  The "devastating socially" is itself, a mask. That particular reaction relates to fears of rejection. Fears of rejection are internal experiences. Being smarter makes this effect worse, usually because someone who is smart (or likes to see themselves as smart) and likes to argue, are typically disconnected with their emotions, not because they put argue themselves into a corner. They seek social acceptance by being right, often because they lack emotional skills to work with acceptance and rejection. It's not really about being dumb or smart. It's really having attachments to self-image. There's this maxim: if you have no pride, then you have no shame. Without attachment, you let your self image go, and the shame goes along with it. You laugh at your folly and have a good time :-) I will note, the methods the sociopath used on the Marine is pretty much the same kind of methods pick up artists use for seducing women, even down to the "you have to get them away from their friends."