
A Nazi Interrogator Who Revealed the Value of Kindness (2014) - DyslexicAtheist
https://psmag.com/social-justice/nazi-interrogator-revealed-value-kindness-84747
======
nabla9
Almost all professional criminals know the antidote for this kind of
interrogation. Military must know it too.

You don't talk with the interrogators at all (except name, rank, serial
number, and date of birth). If they interrogate you 8 hours per day, you stay
mum. No friendly chatter, nothing.

~~~
ARandomerDude
> Almost all professional criminals know the antidote for this kind of
> interrogation. Military must know it too.

Military interrogation is very different from criminal interrogation. The
goals are different on both sides of the table. As a general rule, captives in
a military setting are more concerned with the lives of others than their own.
The opposite is true in a criminal situation. This changes the tactics
dramatically.

Example: your squad is captured behind enemy lines. Two of your guys are
severely wounded. Your captor asks you for some information that you know is
unclassified in exchange for medical care for your buddies. Do you stay
silent?

Before anyone says "they have to give medical care because of Geneva",
remember we live in the real world.

~~~
nabla9
Professional criminals in criminal organizations almost always do this.

It's mostly futile to try to interrogate members of Hell's Angles for example.
The shut up and do the time.

Most low level criminals are criminals because they have drug/alcohol
dependency, neurological problems, etc.. that lead low impulse control. They
are easier to deal with.

------
tragomaskhalos
Point 4 has an intriguing modern analogue: the overwhelming desire many
(most?) of us feel to correct someone who makes a factually incorrect
statement on the internet. Perhaps the monkey is genetically hard-wired to be
a smart-arse.

~~~
dan00
> Perhaps the monkey is genetically hard-wired to be a smart-arse.

I think it is more about smart people being somehow able to see the
pointlessness of the status game with materialistic objects, but somehow not
how they're playing the same game with knowledge.

On the other side smart people can be quite insecure about their smartness,
that they might not be as smart as they think. So correcting others on the
internet might be a way to quieten these insecurities.

~~~
Tade0
My take is that it's simply satisfying and addicting.

I managed to partly wean myself from this only by realising that people are
rather interested in reinforcing their opinions than facts.

~~~
Angostura
> addicting

addictive.

... yes, apparently you are right.

~~~
pure-awesome
Actually, addicting is considered an acceptable form of the word;
[https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/20327/whats-
the-...](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/20327/whats-the-
difference-between-addictive-and-addicting)

...wait a minute.

------
duxup
There was a hearing about torture (I think it was in the US Senate). An
interrogator who was said to be highly effective was answering questions. A
senator asked something like:

"Torture has been used since mankind has been around, it must be pretty
effective."

His response was something like:

"No it is just EASIER to hit someone, not more effective."

~~~
chaostheory
Torture is the best tool if you're trying to get an easy scapegoat.

[https://9gag.com/gag/4856078/cia-fbi-kgb-vs-
rabbit](https://9gag.com/gag/4856078/cia-fbi-kgb-vs-rabbit)

Based on studies like the one described in the article, there are much better
tools than torture if you're actually trying to extract useful information.

~~~
Siemens
Did you just link 9gag as if KT was a reputable source?

~~~
chaostheory
It’s a political cartoon that shows that shows how torture is used. I didn’t
cite it as a research paper. The studies I referred to were described in the
main article

------
kamaal
The most important theme in Dale Carnegie's _How to win friends and influence
people_

If you ever want to influence some one, ever want to hold some one in your
spell and have them totally in your control- _Please show genuine interest and
let them do all the talking_. There are anecdotes going back to the life of
Abraham Lincoln and other people. If you ever want to get people do things for
you, and like you. Let them talk, show genuine interest, and do not correct or
interrupt them. Even if they are just plainly speaking wrong things.

Everyone in the world wants an audience to perform in front of and receive
applause. For some its playing piano, sleight of hand, singing, acting and for
almost every one its just talking.

I'd like to believe that list includes criminals, and prisoners of wars etc
too.

The most important rule of Influencing people. Be presentable, and likable.
But remember influencing is about the people you are trying to influence, not
yourself. The more you make it about them, and the more you make them feel
special the more obligated they feel to help you.

~~~
agarden
Ah. There is someone I know who when we talk, just listens and acts very
interested, but never really engages with what I am saying or argues his own
opinion. I think I understand why now.

But while he makes excellent initial impressions, this behavior has become
infuriating and very off-putting. Such behavior might work for shallow
relationships but it is no good if you want a relationship with depth.

~~~
kamaal
Letting the other people do the talking doesn't mean turning totally mute.

You need to keep the other person busy by providing them topics to talk about
themselves.

------
gerbilly
For an example of this, see this article about how OPP interrogator Jim Smyth
used a non confrontational approach to extract a confession from a Canadian
serial killer.

[https://www.ctvnews.ca/a-deeper-look-into-the-
interrogation-...](https://www.ctvnews.ca/a-deeper-look-into-the-
interrogation-of-russell-williams-1.565832)

There is also a video of the whole interrogation, but I don't recommend
watching it, it contains disturbing material, and for me it lingered in my
mind for days.

------
doodpants
> If we include virtual interactions, the range of people a person interacts
> with each day continues to grow. This essentially means that the number of
> opportunities to “simulate” strategies for interacting with others continues
> to grow. If being nice is the winning strategy in modern society, then the
> increasing number of interactions will increase the speed at which people
> “learn” to adopt this strategy.

I'd certainly like this to be true, but the past couple of decades have shown
that unmoderated internet fora can tend to get pretty toxic, so it's hard to
be so optimistic. Part of this could probably be explained by algorithms
promoting contentious content for page views. But such toxicity was also
present before the rise of modern algorithmically controlled news and social
media, such as USENET newsgroups in the 90's and early 2000's.

~~~
stronglikedan
The good news is that the toxicity rarely carries over to "real life", where
people lose their anonymity and can be held accountable for their
interactions. Most people that are toxic in both ecosystems would be toxic in
either regardless. Of course, the exceptions become news fodder ("he was a
good boy until he learned how to internet", etc.).

------
188201
I think this technique will work if the victim does not expect interrogated by
this approach. So, for example a terrorist group notorious for beheading
victim, by contradicting themselves and use a friendly approach, then it will
work.

For example for police force, they cannot play too tough due to law
restriction, then those really bad guys basically don't give a fuck, so it may
not work.

~~~
bloak
Yes, there are big differences between interviewing a police suspect and
interrogating a prisoner of war. For example, the police suspect may be
worried about going to prison if they say the wrong thing, or being murdered
if they betray a colleague, while that hardly applies to the prisoner of war.
Also, the police suspect is typically speaking in front of several witnesses
while being (visibly) recorded.

By the way, if someone working for the Luftwaffe during the second world war
is a "Nazi interrogator", then presumably any RAF people being interviewed
would be "Tory airmen".

~~~
mikeash
The UK was not a totalitarian state whose most important and well-known
characteristic was absolute control by a single political party.

~~~
icebraining
Still, there seems to be no evidence that he was a Nazi. My country was also
under the control of a fascist party during that time, yet it was a conspiracy
of soldiers and low-rank officers that brought it down.

~~~
mikeash
My point is that “Nazi interrogator” just means he was an interrogator for
Nazi Germany, since it’s that country's defining charteristic.

~~~
richardhod
Beware imprecise language: Germany has not had a Nazi state since 1945, and is
not anything like that. Also, there were SS officers and German military
officers, and they were not the same.

~~~
mikeash
All the more reason that calling this guy a Nazi interrogator is useful and
reasonably correct! If you called him a German interrogator you'd have no idea
what era he from or what role he might have played. The phrase "Nazi
interrogator" tells us immediately that he was an interrogator for the German
government somewhere between 1933 and 1945.

~~~
briandear
How about “Wehrmacht conscript?” That’s extremely precise and accurate.

~~~
mikeash
Seems good as well. The Germans didn’t reuse that name after the war, so it
works.

------
stareatgoats
Kindness and caring is probably more effective than anything else, no matter
what you want to achieve. And ethically way superior.

It is however of course considered devious to use it with any ulterior motive
in mind - especially when directed against the interests of the object of
kindness.

Warfare characteristically leaves many ingrained moral truths in the dust.

~~~
shusson
> Kindness and caring is probably more effective than anything else, no matter
> what you want to achieve

How so?

~~~
gambiting
Well, I can easily imagine that it could be literally impossible to break a
sufficiently determined person, if someone doesn't want to speak then they
will endure incredible amounts of torture without breaking. History is full of
examples like this. But if you spend the same time befriending them and making
them feel like they are on the same side as you....then it's hard to imagine
it couldn't lead to a positive outcome.

~~~
shusson
> I can easily imagine that it could be literally impossible to break a
> sufficiently determined person

Yes I agree and the recent report on the CIA shows some evidence for that [1].

> But if you spend the same time befriending them and making them feel like
> they are on the same side as you....then it's hard to imagine it couldn't
> lead to a positive outcome.

This I have a harder time believing, and besides this article, I didn't know
of any evidence.

[1]
[https://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/sscistudy1.pdf](https://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/sscistudy1.pdf)

------
chriselles
Post WWII, Scharff emigrated to the US and worked as an interrogation
instructor with the USAF, due to the respect US Army Air Force aircrew exposed
to him had for Scharff during the war when Scharff interrogated them.

In the last decade plus of conflict, within military circles, Scharff’s book
has been consistently brought up whenever the topic has covered things like
waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques.

Scharff’s book is excellent and plays to our natural human need for
compassionate and empathetic human connection.

It’s worth mentioning that while Scharff’s techniques have been proven to be
very effective and useful for long-term interrogation there is still a place
for “shock of capture” tactical questioning.

By that I mean in the period immediately following the capture of an enemy
combatant there is an opportunity to apply psychological pressure(fear of
implied threats, etc) and attempt to extract useful information without
violence(they are now captured so the duty of care for them is on their
captors), before they transition into longer-term incarceration and
professional interrogation.

------
newsbinator
This gives me the idea for an "escape room" type of game, which would involve
the subject taking a vacation for up to 2 weeks to participate in the game.

The business gets them into a room and interrogates them about a pre-arranged
secret. Something awkward or embarrassing (but obviously not criminal or
dangerous/harmful, etc).

If they give up the secret, intentionally or inadvertently, then the business
gets their money (a lot).

If not, the subject walks away having paid a nominal fee, with a certificate
and bragging rights, and can use the remaining days to enjoy their vacation or
go back to work.

------
briandear
The title should more accurately be “A Wehrmacht Interrogator..” There was no
evidence that Scharff was ever a member of the Nazi Party. In fact, he was a
conscript as well as married to a British South African and his father was a
decorated Prussian officer (the old Prussian military tradition secretly
despised the Nazis.)

------
shusson
> Participants in the experiment were given a story...The interrogations were
> done by phone...

Interesting concept, but far from a realistic interrogation environment.

------
vermontdevil
Matthew Alexander employed similar methods and was able to track down Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi

[https://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133497869/one-man-says-no-
to-...](https://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133497869/one-man-says-no-to-harsh-
interrogation-techniques)

------
herodotus
I see this often: journalists use the word "Nazi" when they should have said
"German". "Nazi Germany" refers to the period of time when Germany was ruled
by the Nazi party. A Nazi was someone who belonged to the Nazi party. Many
germans, including soldiers, did not. I see no evidence that Scharff was a
Nazi, so why label him one?

