As far as I’m concerned. Game technology really hasn’t advanced since the late Aughties. New technology has changed the scene a bit. Back in the day, there was not swipe right or swipe left. So maybe I’m not 100% correct…
But in terms of the game that matter, not more efficient scheduling, not a whole lot has changed.
- See A Girl
- Walk Over There
- Get her attention
- Keep talking until she reacts
- Use her reaction as fuel to really start the interaction going.
There is some stuff at the edges that you should do to make things easy, but the basic premise is that you want to light a fire under a girl and turn it into a blaze…for you.
So the game that I concern myself with is the stuff that gets her emotions going. The working theory that I’ve cobbled together from comparing my experiences to those of others is essentially that real game is sub-communicating. The mere fact that you can sub-communicate is attractive. And send the right signals…
Well you know the rest.
So to that end, I’ve been looking for deeper forms of sub-communication in game, but also outside of game.
Enter Interrogation.
http://www.wired.com/2016/05/how-to-interrogate-suspects/?mbid=social_fb
A novel interrogation technique borrowed from the war on terror..
Here’s the key phrase
But the central finding running through much of HIG’s research is this: If you want accurate information, be as non-accusatorial as possible—the HIG term is “rapport-building.” This may sound like coddling, but it’s a means to an end. The more suspects say, the more that can be checked against the record. The whole posture of the interrogation—or interview, as the HIG prefers to call it—is geared not toward the extraction of a confession but toward the pursuit of information.
Rapport Building.
Now i’ve you been in the game a minute, Rapport is something that happens when a girl realizes that she can share anything. Rapport is typically achieved when she opens and the conversation goes from you talking 90% of the time and her giving one word answers, to a nice back and forth.
Wide Rapport is talking freely about a lot of topics.
Deep rapport is talking in depth, typically about personal topics.
So the cops have figured out that you can get a whole lot of information out of suspects by creating rapport. Who said cops had game?
For we who pursue the playerly arts, this is not news.
But let’s break down stuff in the article that stands out.
Intense stare? Already stacking the deck here Wired.
One should raise an eyebrow here. It’s 2016, shouldn’t his past be his past? lol. It’s interesting when the mainstream media bucks the mainstream media trends. (You know I gotta throw a bone to my Red Pill fans.)
Now we get to some interesting stuff. Criminal Interrogation and Confessions by Fred Inbau and John Reid.
If you’ve watched a cop/lawyer show in the past 5 decades, this is the stuff where they got the perp in the interrogation room, and they basically badger him, lie to him, and break him down psychologically in order to eke out a confession. The way the cop shows play this out is that they keep pulling out evidence until the perp decides to come clean.
In the real world, it’s more like the scene from Menace II Society
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gbKPdttusQ
“You know you done fucked up”..
They keep having them repeat the story over and over again, until they misremember something, or one detail isn’t exact.
I hate this sort of thing. And if you live in a free country, you should too. This is psychological abuse.
But there’s game here. The cops believe that they are so right, that they have free license to press their versions of reality on the suspect.
- the claustrophobic room
- the interrogators’ outward projection of certainty
- the insistence on a theory of the case that assumes the suspect’s guilt
Another juicy quote, “The manual gave rise to a new archetype: the silver-tongued interrogator-someone who, through intimidation and seduction can get anyone to admit to anything.
But you and I both know that browbeating can get you into “romance”. Indeed, this sort of thing, where you judge yourself to be right can have you at the wrong end of a set of furry handcuffs.
Here’s another good piece.
Ignore the lies, but focus on “end up believing they did it”
Okay, hmm. Interested? Me too. Not for nefarious reasons of course. But I see pieces of these techniques in how they motivate people at my undisclosed corporate job.
But can only cops do this?
Of course not.
A researcher learned how to do it, and here’s what she found.
Shaw tells me she designed her study to mimic the techniques used in some false-confession cases. “I’m essentially marrying poor interrogation tactics with poor therapeutic tactics,” she says. The results were so strong, in fact, that she stopped administering the experiment before she had run through her full sample.
Hmmm, therapeutic tactics? Now she’s really piquing my interest. Not so much that she did that, but there is even such a thing as therapeutic tactics. This begs further inquiry on my part.
On liars
A Severed Head, Two Cops, and the Radical Future of Interrogation | WIRED
Truth tellers ultimately will be able to give you far more detail that you can go and check,” says Steven Kleinman, a veteran military interrogator who has worked with the HIG. “No matter how good the cover story is, it’s not going to be as rich as a real-life story.” Liars, in other words, have to work much harder to invent and keep track of details. One way researchers have found to bring this strain and effort to the surface is to ask witnesses to tell their stories in reverse chronological order: Liars have a much harder time with it.
So here’s the secret sauce, something that we’ve been doing for a while. A player is not judgmental.
When the conversation turned to the murder, they stayed chatty and nonconfrontational for as long as possible.
And do players just wing it? Of course not.
They learned, for instance, that the kind of advance preparation and strategy that Stearns had put into the Lazarus case, and his unusual efforts to keep the conversation noncombative, have been shown to be effective.
So when they approach the suspect again, the detectives used another player trick, they kept the environment safe.
Suitcases and maps and papers were strewn about the hotel suite. But there were no tape recorders in sight, no pads with questions.
They go on to say that they almost never interruprted Campos-Martinez, and they avoided themings. Sounds a bit like “Don’t scare the cat” This is actually a bit difference than how you run high octane night game. You want the young lady to talk about her romantic episodes, almost to get her to relive them.
The article goes on to say how they made sure that the suspect never felt like he was in a bind. No walls.
So now my wheels are spinning. Clearly some of this stuff is useful for rapport. But the more dark triad stuff, where the cops are basically pushing someone to accept their version of the truth, their frame (as opposed to letting them come to it, or discover it) – makes me wonder if there are things in both techniques that could be used for love not war.
-WIA