The one thing I wondered about was whether the techniques for getting compliance interfere with getting information. For example, what if someone who isn’t consenting to a search is actually right about the law?
The thing that bothers me about the talk is that most of it makes the assumption that you’re being calm and rational, that you’re right, and that whoever you’re talking to is irrational and needs to be verbally judo’d into compliance. Sometimes that’s the case, but most of the techniques don’t really apply to situations where you’re dealing with another calm, sane person as an equal.
Thank you for writing this up.
The one thing I wondered about was whether the techniques for getting compliance interfere with getting information. For example, what if someone who isn’t consenting to a search is actually right about the law?
The thing that bothers me about the talk is that most of it makes the assumption that you’re being calm and rational, that you’re right, and that whoever you’re talking to is irrational and needs to be verbally judo’d into compliance. Sometimes that’s the case, but most of the techniques don’t really apply to situations where you’re dealing with another calm, sane person as an equal.
Thompson is actually ambiguous on the point. Sometimes he’s really clear that what you’re aiming for is compliance.