3 ms·
So you're saying the letter is a long-con to increase trust in psychopaths to make it easier for the author to take advantage of people? You say you don't nece
by sliverstorm 13y ago
So you're saying the letter is a long-con to increase trust in psychopaths to make it easier for the author to take advantage of people?
You say you don't necessarily mean "con", but "manipulated" definitely implies you feel you were led to believe something likely false that you wouldn't have otherwise via trickery, etc.
- kbenson 13y agoI think he is just saying that the letter can also be taken as self serving manipulation, so may or may not really communicate change.
- interpol_p 13y agoIt might not be a con, the letter just demonstrates a self-serving nature written in a manipulative, empathy inducing style. The letter may have no long-term purpose, but it might be written that way because the author is so used to this way of thinking.
- hootener 13y agoDon't overthink my comment. I don't know C and have no idea how pure his intention in writing the letter may be. Despite his intent, I believe that I left the letter thinking exactly what it was designed to make me think. Therefore, the actual mechanics of the letter (which were outlined well by tomstokes, in my opinion) were excellent at eliciting what I assume is the intended response. This is akin to successful manipulation, but may not necessarily be from a place of malice on the part of C. However, C's changing my opinion of psychopathy does in fact place him in a more advantageous position if the two of us were ever to meet, thus I was manipulated.
- prirun 13y agoI don't agree that whenever someone changes your mind to their way of thinking because of compelling writing, they "manipulated" you. You have the choice of agreeing with them or not. If you agree with them and change your views, you can't just say "they manipulated me".