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.
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.
Some people seem to have an almost super-human level of charisma/ability to influence others (there is probably a D&D reference to be made here).
Certainly the trope is common in fiction. See: The Mentalist (both the protagonist and antagonist share this ability) and several Agatha Christie novels with similar storylines.
This guy sounds like a real-life Red John; able to subtly re-wire people's thinking so that they actually want to do what he suggests.
I have only ever experienced this in the formulaic pattern of dark-arts sales tactics. Israeli companies selling cosmetic products from the Dead Sea are notorious for making a superficial connection with their potential customers and then exploiting that connection for a sale. But those tactics aren't hard to see through and resist. Quite scary to think that someone who has mastered those techniques could actually alter my preferences simply with the power of suggestion.
> Some people seem to have an almost super-human level of charisma/ability to influence others
I think most people are completely unaware of how true this is. As students and tech geeks, we've all probably met someone whose talents seemed otherworldly -- mastery of Quantum math, able to punch out code like Notch, that sort of natural intellectual athleticism that seems like something they must have just been born with.
Well, in boardrooms and marketing departments, in politics, in places of power and sometimes just in random situations, there exist people for whom the ability to (at least seemingly) 'connect' with other people at a deep psychological level is similarly off the charts, in the vanishing 6-sigma rightward tail of the hump.
Of those few people, some percentage, say 1%, were additionally born without anything like a normal conscience. They are incapable of feeling guilt or the normal sort of empathy that makes one feel the suffering of another soul.
I believe that those are, for the most part, the people in charge of things.
There is an amount of fair criticism on the subject, but it has made sense (in my opinion), to equate these individuals as being very high in emotional intelligence / awareness of self, others, and the perceptions of themselves, by others.
This may be true, but in my experience most "emotionally intelligent" people are also -- sometimes to a fault -- prone to really feeling other people's pain as their own.
The interesting combination for me is those with such "emotional intelligence" in that they can read people and figure out their motivations and feelings, but they don't have a significant empathic response, and they appear to feel little or no guilt in utilizing these perceptions for personal gain, regardless of the pain they inevitably cause to those who trusted them.
I complety fell for one of those Israeli cosmetics things in the mall in my early 20's. My dad was in sales so I am accustomed to all the techniques of persuasion. But for some reason that day I bought $20 or so worth of skin care products I had no intention of using. When I got to my car, I was like, "what on EARTH just happened?!" I have never allowed myself to be so manipulated before or since. Creepy to think of those same techniques being applied to nefarious ends.
Tricking you into buying junk you don't need qualifies as a nefarious end in my book. But you're right; serial killers rarely have a cooling-off period or returns policy.
Deliberately exposing yourself to these salespeople is great training. As long as you don't buy anything.
I was twice targeted by timeshare resort companies. It's really high-pressure, but it's endless fun to see them escalating salespeople, from the junior interns to the really experienced mindbenders. From praising you for your success, to criticizing you for not living up to what was expected from you at your point in life.
OH yeah, happened to me too! The only reason I didn't buy was that I was completely, genuinely broke. Heh. She was so pretty and so thoughtful and persuasive and blah blah blah.
I worked with some of the best salespeople in telecommunications (retail) here in Australia, working for the second largest telco. They had this ability, and you can learn it with enough practice. By the time I left, I was #3 in the country for that telco.
It's scary to realise how powerful it can be. Once, one in of the guys had a girl who took two contract phones come back in utterly disbelief at what had happened about a half hour later: this was no ordinary buyers remorse.
The only way to avoid it is to not communicate with those people.
It helps with nearly everything you do in life. I find it amazing and scary.
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.
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.
Please give some thought to whether you might be intolerant before blaming your reaction on others. The specific things that "turn your stomach" here are a) men enjoying the admiration of other men, b) some commenters saying (a) was beautifully written, and c) further discussion of sexuality in the HN comments. You can't articulate why those three things bother you, but I am going to guess it's because you're not comfortable with the homosexual themes in "this gay story."
It's unfortunate that there are essentially two very interesting but almost contradictory elements to this story. One is the incredible charisma and persuasive abilities of this sociopath from the point of view of someone subjected to them. The other is the shift in perspective the writer experienced at the time of the incident, not knowing that the person was a serial killer. He realized that it is possible to have strong feelings for someone of the same sex, to enjoy being admired by them, etc., even while not being interested in a homosexual relationship. It was probably a positive influence on his life. While it makes for an extremely compelling story, it's almost a shame the two are combined, because the original experience and its effect on the writer was in a way completely independent from the fact that the guy turned out to be a killer.
I'm not a gay supporter, but my "discomfort" is not the reason I'm this shocked. Certainly my morality influences how I view things. But I'd likewise be sickened by seduction of an innocent person of the same sex.
What disturbs me in this story is the described hypnotism. The snake almost manipulated the guy who is clear as day about having not one bit of interest in the same sex. To make him strip is brain washing. Had the marine been attracted to the same sex, I would be less disturbed.
Now consider the following. Perhaps it is not me who is intolerant, but perhaps you lack perspective. Bear with me, I bore with you: Imagine that the story was of a sadistic straight rapist. The almost-victim must be completely uninterested in sex; if you cannot imagine such a level of purity, imagine a lesbian. Now imagine that someone comments on the survival story of this kind that she wrote using words like "wonderful". Is that a normal reaction? And then someone asks the almost-victim if the experience has made the victim less willing to have sex with men. Now you're coming from the same place I'm coming from. (cue people calling you a bigot)
When you say gay story what do you mean? I'm straight but i don't think this is gay story, it involves homosexual momentum, like, let's say Naked Lunch, but is not pro or even against gays. Author really tried to make neutral view about everything and he tried to make human analysis of situation in which he was involved.
I said elsewhere that it reads like serial killer fan fiction. The fan that would write such a story would be gay. I hope I'm beginning to make some sense, if not, please ask more questions.
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.
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.
I know he didn't read the article. I guess technically what cam4er is doing would be called shitposting, but I tend to consolidate these related behaviors under the trolling category. Fact of the matter is, and I think we agree on that, his posts are low enough quality to get him banned.
I found the article itself very interesting, actually. Morbid of course, it's a serial killer story. I didn't get the impression that the killer was idolized though, it was more a description of how far almost-superhuman charisma can go and what it must feel like to be on the receiving end of it.
I read the "perfectly wonderful" comment and took it as a compliment on the author's writing ability. IMO he did a great job conveying an unusual social and emotional situation.
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.
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...
Yeah, there's certainly an 'art' to being direct as well.
So having said that, it's kind of tricky to pinpoint what was creepy about this guy and what's kind of fair game.
I mean, my feeling is that it's almost anachronistic to get worked up about this in 2013. Before he killed anybody, this guy got off the hook incredibly easy for drugging/raping a minor (and getting caught red handed!), as I understand was often the exception more than the rule before the 1980's. There was a recent story about how a lot of the decrease in crime is partly due to smaller gateway crimes like car theft becoming less common - I wonder if society's more vigilant stance on rape in recent decades could have had a similar effect.
Also, as common as it is to hate social networks, how much safer would this guy be if they'd done the standard 'Hey, you're cool, let's add eachother on Facebook' or 'Can you text me your address'? A minimal digital 'paper trail' would probably give a guy like this a lot of pause, and if he'd been hesitant/weird about those interactions, it'd probably be even more of a clue for even a young guy.
What makes someone creepy has nothing to do with the guy who comes off as creepy. Creepiness is an internal experience indicating that you (the person feeling creeped out) are uncomfortable and disturbed.
In this case, I would hazard most straight guys who read this article and feel disturbed are disturbed that someone can induce a state of homosexual attraction within them. Further, aside from the obvious fear of homosexual attraction, there's also the empathy for women who are subjected to methods like this.
It's easy to rationalize some form of this behavior as "fair game". Would you still consider it fair game if you put yourself in that Marine's shoes, or in a woman's shoes, being subject to methods like this? Maybe, maybe not.
The sociopath sees his victims as an object, as something that he can play with and exercises his power. He gets off on being able to take a straight guy -- and I suppose, one idealized in the form of an ultra-macho Marine -- and seduce him, the power to turn him into something he is not. (Then kill him).
No one likes being treated like an object.
I've seen this kind of rationalization in many of the pick-up artist material, rendering the person into an object. Sometimes, the rationalization covers up their own sense of helplessness and impotency ("Stop putting women on a pedestal!" "Some people are afraid of the power of these techniques!") But that covers up the main issue: there's a particular shadow side to masculinity, where lust consumes the brain and the person who attracted you stops being a person and becomes an object to fulfill that lust. Further, it is related to another shadow side, that men want to feel that they have power over women and can conquer them. (And likewise, some women know this and exploit this emotional vulnerability).
There is some wisdom in the sociopath, in particular, being detached from being consumed by impulses and emotions. Sociopaths though, lack empathy. They lack the ability to feel as others do, and so will do some destructive things.
It's entirely possible to use the methods from the PUA community with empathy (and perhaps, compassion) ... but you know, in order to do that, you first have to get in touch with your own emotions. Most men tend to be wimpy about going deep within themselves or surrendering to truth and wisdom.
> how much safer would this guy be if they'd done the standard 'Hey, you're cool, let's add eachother on Facebook' or 'Can you text me your address'? A minimal digital 'paper trail' would probably give a guy like this a lot of pause, and if he'd been hesitant/weird about those interactions, it'd probably be even more of a clue for even a young guy.
I guess being a serial killer is an iterative process. You start clumsy, and develop the technique. You probably lack the inhibitions that stop you from psychological experiments on people.
I'm sure a plausible liar could persuade me that there was a reason not to give me facebook ("oh, hey, my mom is on there, and she'd ask me questions about all the guys I keep adding" would probably work on me) or other interactions.
"I'm sure a plausible liar could persuade me that there was a reason not to give me facebook ("oh, hey, my mom is on there, and she'd ask me questions about all the guys I keep adding" would probably work on me) or other interactions."
Not to be too pedantic about a hypothetical, but that would give away his ulterior motive a whole lot sooner. I only quibble because there are a thousand ways that modest technology use could snag someone or raise red flags. What if someone had called him on his phone while he was hanging out with this guy? "Oh I'm at the corner of x and x hanging out with a new friend". What if he took a picture of that guy? What if the occasional GTA session and hooking up with dudes on hook-up sites sublimated a lot of the killer's darker urges? Or what if, in a more connected world a lot more accepting of gay people, he just moved to Maine and bought a house with a boyfriend?
I'm sure we can go back and forth about a lot of things like this, but the bottom line is that there has been a massive reduction in violent crime in the last decade or so; I think technology has been a major factor.
> 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.
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.
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."
The problem is that evolutionary causes often don't link cleanly to psychological causes. The evolutionary reason that I like things that taste sweet is that back when most of my ancestors lived, sweet usually meant "calories", and not getting enough calories was a more pressing threat than diabetes or cavities. But no matter how deeply I internalize the fact that this reasoning is obsolete, that calories are bountiful, and that my best strategy is to eat a well rounded diet, I'm still going to enjoy sweet things.
The same problem comes up when you talk about psychology. Yes, the evolutionary cause for consistency pressure is to prevent rejection, as rejection could easily lead to death for early humans. But that does not mean that the psychological basis for consistency pressure is fear of rejection. High level psychological phenomena are a beautiful solution for an ever-changing environment, but with relatively constant factors (like rejection -> death), hardwired instincts are far more reliable.
That doesn't mean that fear of rejection as a high level phenomenon doesn't also exist. There's no optimizing flag in our brains that says "If there's an instinct to handle environmental factor X, ignore X while adapting". But those high level phenomena do not motivate our instincts.
So given the universality of consistency as a need during most of our evolution, and the apparent universality of consistency bias as a flaw in human reasoning, I would give a very low prior to it being something you could reprogram by "digging it up by the roots". Rather, overcoming consistency bias is likely to require high level compensation techniques.
Linking evolutionary causes to psychological causes is interesting if that is what you are studying. However, knowledge of such link does not actually give you emotional skills. Those skill require awareness and practice. It might be enhanced with a knowledge of links between evolutionary causes and psychology -- or knowledge of psychology for that matter -- but it is not necessary when actually exercising the skill.
It doesn't matter how much you know or don't know about rejection. What matters more is how you feel about rejection and your skills at working with emotions.
In any case, I suspect what you are doing in writing that response is exactly the process I had described: the use of intelligence and knowledge to avoid actually being aware of what you are feeling and underlying emotional currents.
Digging up the roots work. There's a little bit more to it than that. However, I don't have an interest in convincing you that it works. :-)
Granted the author was a sad drunk, and perhaps just a second-rate intelligence who could string together some pretty syllables, but I've always found this useful:
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." -- F.S. Fitzgerald.
That's moderately horrifying. It's also a sad reminder - so many of us go through life having to chisel and scrape that kind of affection out of the world. I can see how having it freely given could be very enticing.
Parents of young children: the time to inoculate your children against this tool of sociopaths is now. Communicate your love with every word and embrace, and you'll fill a reservoir that will never go dry.
Jesus, it just goes on and on and on... and in the end, there's no heroic manhunt, no great victory. He was caught driving drunk with a corpse in the passenger seat, so used to murder that he'd gotten lazy about it.
You can't help but feel outrage that nobody stopped him... that the public wasn't sufficiently warned that any of these boys, these kids could have known there was a serial-killer stalking them.
Reading about Jeffrey Dahmer left me similarly shaken. One of his victims -- Konerak Sinthasomphone -- managed to escape out onto the street and contact some women who called the police.
When the police officers (John Balcerzak and Joseph Gabrish) arrived, Dahmer managed to convince the them that it was a gay lovers' quarrel and the officers let Dahmer take Sinthasomphone home again.
Can you imagine the horror of escaping torment and certain death, only to be handed right back to your tormenter by the police?
Holy shit. This victim, who 31 year old Dahmer claimed was his lover, was also 14 years old at the time, and the police returned him (naked and bleeding) despite his protests. (Sinthasomphone was disoriented at the time, having been drugged, but apparently still did protest.) At least the officer was fired: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Balcerzak
... reading the other wikipedia article, Dahmer had also performed an experiment on him that would've also impared his cognition pretty severely. I'm not going to write the details since it was NSFL, but I'm surprised people didn't notice it.
When you dig into it, nobody really knows how many victims there were. His cryptic tally sheet seemed to indicate 67 or so, but some investigators believe he may have killed 100 or more.
For instance, when they caught him, the front passenger seat of his car was apparently bloodsoaked, but was never matched to any known/suspected victim. A fair amount of evidence suggests that he had at least a part-time accomplice as well. All sorts of unknowns, as he still maintains complete innocence to this day.
He had been killing people in Oregon, on business trips up there and the folks up there theorized that something like this was happening and had been working credit card gas purchase, car rental, and airline ticket info and from what I read, right around the time he got arrested in Ca. his name was coming to the top in Oregon.
I suppose a case could be made that the lack of media frenzy and nickname had something to do with society's approach to homosexuality and the "targets" being masculinity defined.
Yeah, I've lived in this area my whole life and I'd never heard of Randy Kraft. Granted I was a kid during the time so perhaps I just had been kept in the dark (though I was keenly aware of the Night Stalker as a kid). So I just asked my dad and he'd never heard of him either. Crazy that something that large was happening under our noses and nobody knew...
Some things to think about related to the experiences of the author. At the time of coming into contact with Randy Kraft he had already killed at least 20 people, and during that year had committed at least 5 separate murders. Pretty sobering to think about.
Also, reading these details I can't help but be extremely critical of the criminal justice system's failures in regards to the case. There were so many opportunities to catch Kraft in the earlier days of his "exploits" that were wasted by either poor police work or poor judgment of the district attorney.
"By adolescence, Kraft had taken a keen interest in politics, becoming a staunch Republican[12] with aspirations to become a U.S. senator. Shortly after his enrollment at Westminster High School, he and two close friends founded a Westminster World Affairs Club. At Westminster High School, Kraft was again regarded as a pleasant, bright student who regularly achieved A grades."
Are you disturbed that he was a Republican? Because if you'd read the very next section of the Wikipedia article you'd have seen that it said:
"Shortly after his enrollment as a freshman at Claremont Men's College, Kraft enrolled in the Claremont Reserve Officers Training Corps[16] and he regularly attended demonstrations in favor of the Vietnam War and — in 1964 — for the election of conservative presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. Kraft later declared these actions were merely a mimic of his parents' political views and not his own, describing his second year at Claremont as being when he abandoned "last gasp" of conservative ideology.[16] The same year, Kraft entered his first known homosexual relationship."
I'm also disturbed that this police officer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Balcerzak) could even continue doing his job and be elected as a public official after handing back a victim to his would-be murderer. And still asking for appeal and getting his job back after his termination.
That Wikipedia article scares me more than the Serial Killer one. This dumb SOB is still a cop & was installed in a leadership position. Where the F#?k is Dexter when you need him?
> I'm disturbed that in an alternate universe we could be reading about Kraft's reelection campaign.
Both serial killers and politicians (and CEOs) have sociopathy in common. It's not a huge leap to imagine such a universe. Think of all the innocents killed at the hands of the current slate of US politicians.
I'm not sure if this anything to do with why this is on HN but Jay Roberts is Jason Roberts's brother (Jason Roberts is co-host of the TechZing podcast).
If any of your would like to read more about "underrated" serial killers after this harrowing story, Albert Fish comes to mind. Even just the wikipedia article is about as scary a horror tale as they come. Many friends have been unable to finish reading:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish
This story is for great (non-blockbuster) movie. Almodovar, but with good ending :-)
But it's interesting to think why is author still alive. Is killer possessive gay that is willing to kill guys that are ignoring/rejecting him? Because author didn't reject him as many others that are now in the grave?
Also, even if author is wrong, really interesting and non-intrusive emotional overview.
I know there's a policy to keep the title of the source article, but if admins are going to blindly change post titles to remove all useful context and revert to meaningless, misleading headlines, can't they at least come up with a prefix for it? There's Ask HN, Show HN... in this case "Distract HN" might have been appropriate.
1. Polaroid wasn't making a black and white integral film in 1980, and FujiFilm didn't make instant film until 1981. Kodak's instant film was color. So how did Kraft produce an instant B+W image?
2. Did you really drink 2-3 beers and then get on a motorbike?
1) I really don't know. Maybe he had a stockpile? Maybe it really was color, but the room was somewhat dark/shaded, and I'm only remembering/assuming it as B&W?
2) We used to do a lot, lot, lot worse than that in the USMC in those pre-MADD days. Different era.
Fun fact - same motorcycle, I was struck by lightning on it several months later, riding home from California (to Ga) on I-70 in Missouri. This was following my discharge (actually, end of active service) in late August.
I don't know the timespan in the story, 2-3 beers over the course of several hours results in a terminal state that is best described as sober for somebody with a marine's physical profile.
The fact that you are surprised by 2-3 beers is fascinating. Social stigma is definitely powerful enough that the younger generations completely overestimate the effects of alcohol.
2-3 beers over the length of time in the story would leave you well below the legal limit and your motor skills would not be impaired unless you never have alcohol, which he clearly stated wasn't the case.
Tldr. Cut the melodrama. It's like being shocked when someone has a beer and walks down some stairs.
Once again, some admin has changed the title from better to worse---it was "How I met a serial killer when I was a marine", which is considerably more descriptive.
I agree. It makes sense to use the original title so that people don't editorialize. However, it may be the case that the site uses a vague title for artistic reasons. What benefit do we get by using that cryptic title instead of a descriptive one (as long as it doesn't editorialize)?
I have to concur. I clicked on this article wondering if there was some sort of new discovery in astronomy. Still an interesting read, but the old headline was much more appropriate.
Yeah, I thought what I titled it was clear and informative and as author of the article, the Orange Coast title was literary rather than descriptive.
FWIW, I originally titled this "The Crack Of A Twig" and we were rolling w/that title, but at the last minute, the editors at OC Mag asked if they could change it.
I'm not a pro writer by any means, and going through the process of editing a feature article w/a print mag was pretty interesting.
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.